Apollo BBS Archive - August 1991

Apollo BBS Archive - August 3, 1991

Mail from Melissa Dee
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:17:11

Your welcome!

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 7787
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 02:44:18

Good post Rod!

Message: 7788
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Believe it or not!
Subject: FUNNY, FUNNY DARYL
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 07:37:35

> No, the only thing that's clear is that you hold a very
> dogmatic stand on a very unverifiable theory.
 
Oh, Daryl!  Stop!  You're making my sides hurt!

Message: 7789
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Rebuttal
Subject: MUDSLINGING ROD
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 07:37:58

> Rod, are you ever capable of making your point without having
> to resort to name-calling and mudslinging first?
 
Yeah, Rod!  Put the name-calling and mudslinging last!  That way you can
pretend you're making rational arguments.

Message: 7790
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Beau Dog / 7783
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 13:05:30

    The question is, if God exists, then would he not exist outside of, or
at least seperate in nature, from his creation?  And if this is to be the
case, then there would be validity in trying to compare the nature of the
creation with the nature of it's creator.  We cannot, therefore, assert that
God MUST have a beginning.  His word, however, states that He is eternal,
and since we have no other source of information on which to gauge the
nature of the Christian God of the Bible, then we must, if we indeed do
believe in Him, to take Him at His word.  That is my position.

Message: 7791
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Rod / 7784
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 13:09:36

     But what about the evolutionary train of thought that used to say that
Blacks were less evolved than Anglo/Saxon Whites, and therefore did not have
the same equality to Whites?  Racism is an evolutionary by-product. 
Scripture says we are all related to Noah, and further down the line, to
Adam, the first man.  Therefore, race is nothing more than a variety in
genes, and is based upon nothing more than how much melanin pigment is in
your skin.  Therefore I feel that we are all related.  Williams, Harvey,
Smith, Jones, Ching, Johnson, Prabhuada, Gonzales, Blanchard, M'butu,
Westfall.  Indeed, what IS the difference?

Message: 7792
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Burkett / 7788
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 13:12:41

     Well?  His theory is unverifiable in the fact that the fossil record
contradicts it.  What is the missing link anyway?  What's to keep us from
saying that the reason it's "missing" is because it does not exist?  What
about the evolutionary process?  Why don't we see evolution happening now? 
Evolutionists say that either (a) It's so slow we can't see it, or (b) It
happened so fast that we missed it.  So evolution is so slow we can't see
it, so fast that we missed it - hey, what's to say it DIDN'T HAPPEN AT ALL?

Message: 7793
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Bill / 7789
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 13:14:43

     I'm unsure whether or not you meant that sarcastically or not, but in
either case...oh, no...LORDKEEPMEFROMSAYINGITAUUUUUUUGHHHHHNOOOOOOOO!
 
 
     Good post.
 
     AAAAAAAUGH (thud)

Message: 7794
Author: $ Wild Barbarian
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl/your share
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:35:51

Gee Daryl, seems like you should be listening to your self.  Seems like you
do your own name calling and mudslinging.......
 Were does YOUR integrity stem from??????????

Message: 7795
Author: $ Wild Barbarian
Category: Answer!
Subject: darly/nonsense
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:39:21

 I think for the most part the scientific community has taken to the belief
that Carbon Dating IS accurate and reliable.  It's you and your type of
people that make things so laughable... What are you SO AFRAID of?  The
truth that doesn't come from a bibble, but from hard evidence?  How much of
what is in the bibble can actually be proved as actually occurring as
written down???????????? I wonder.

Message: 7796
Author: $ Wild Barbarian
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl/Answer
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:45:58

 Who cares how long ago it happened?  Point is it did happen and continues
to do so.  Everything in this world, whether you want to believe it or not
continues to evolve and change.  
 I am combining two posts here.  This is in response to your previous post
about God wanting me.....  I believe that the way one lives life determines
whether one is in heaven or hell.  It's whatever you care to make of it. The
poorest person on the planet can be in heaven if that person is at peace
with himself/herself.  And the other extreme is just as true.  The richest
smuck on the planet can be in hell if he is not happy with what he/she has. 
I think I have a very good idea of what makes me feel good/happy and I
believe I have a very good sense of good and wrong.  And I think a lot of
other people do also, be they religious or not.

Message: 7797
Author: $ Wild Barbarian
Category: Answer!
Subject: BD/right on!
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:47:32

 I agree with you fully.... WHERE DID GOD COME FROM????
Can any one answer me?

Message: 7798
Author: $ Wild Barbarian
Category: Answer!
Subject: Rod/sure
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:49:05

 Hehehe....what are your favorite?  I personally like roses....(hmmm could
go next door and "borrow" a few...hehehehe)

Message: 7799
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Barbarian
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 16:41:11

     I backtracked and read every single one of my posts on this SIG
relating to this discussion, and in not a single instance did I attempt to
insult anyone.  Furthermore, if someone to whom any of those posts were
directed WAS offended, they must have a very thin skin.
 
     The only thing I could be accused of on this SIG is speaking my point
of view and defending it with intelligence and not petty insults.
 
     Perhaps you are trying to make an issue out of a non-issue in an effort
to get the "free-thinkers" on this board to rally around your cause
(whatever it may be) by making unsubstantiated claims against me.  I feel
you will no doubt succeed since I have seen it happen on here again and
again in the past.
 
    And by the way, about those other religions you listed...I have more
information on the age of them in relation to Christianity that I will post
later.

Message: 7800
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Wild Barbarian
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 16:50:53

     Carbon dating is neither accurate or reliable.  It is used because it
comes up with results (as wildly inaccurate and contradictory they may seem
even to each other when multiple dating is done) that are based on
suppositions of "projected dates" set forth by the evolutionists before the
testing is even done.
 
     "It's you and YOUR TYPE OF PEOPLE that make things so laughable..."
(emphasis mine)  Gee, look at that phrase.  YOUR TYPE OF PEOPLE.  Shows that
real discussion is not your agenda, perhaps?  Would you care to substantiate
that and show it to be something other than the prejudice it seems to be?
 
     "...truth that doesn't come from a bibble, but from hard evidence..."
Haven't seen an atheistic evolutionary scientist that has ever provided
single evidence one that we evolved from primordial soup OR that the earth
is millions of years old.  I would like to see some of this hard evidence
that you claim the evolutionists have.  In fact, I remember not too long ago
that I asked you to provide some of this good, hard, rock-solid evidence. 
In fact ONE piece, to be exact.  I haven't seen it yet.  (Is it perhaps
because you don't have it?  Is it perhaps because it doesn't exist except in
your imagination?)  Seems that all I have gotten in response has been either
insults or opinions or false accusations.  I'm still waiting.  How much
longer need I wait?

Message: 7801
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Barbarian
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 16:57:21

"Point is it did happen and continues to do so."
     I'm sorry, but opinion (unsubstantiated opinion) does not count as
fact.  You say "Everything in this world...continues to evolve and change."
I say that "Everything was made that is made in six days by an eternal
Creator-God that is Sovereign over all of His creation."  You ask me to
provide fact.  Look at the world around you.  There's your fact.  Time,
chance and random process?  Or plan, purpose and design?  If you believe
that this universe is just the product of dumb chance and really long
periods of time (that no one can accurately gauge because they weren't there
at the beginning), then I'm sorry, but I feel as if it is you that hold the
unbelievable opinion.  Take DNA.  DNA requires proteins, but the proteins
require the DNA.  But the DNA requires the proteins first.  Which came
first?  It's the chicken or the egg problem (which I can solve, being a
believer in the God that created this universe - since God created all
animals according to their kinds, the chicken would have had to come
first).

Message: 7802
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Wild Barbarian
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 16:59:19

    Even if someone could give you an answer to your question (the origin of
God), your bias would not allow you to accept it.  You refuse to believe
that God exists or that the Bible is reliable.  Can you tell me, then, why
you concern yourself with such questions?

Message: 7803
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl/biology
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 18:22:15

DNA requires proteins.  Proteins *do not* require DNA.  Nice try.
 
If God was such a good designer, explain the digestive system (especially
the last few bits).  Why don't our bodies convert all input to body
mass/energy?  Why do we *need* to eat to live?
 
(Daryl, don't read this, as I'm giving you your "explanation".  What you are
going to say is that we just don't have the capacity or knowledge to
question His ways...)

Message: 7804
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Wild Barb
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 20:57:23

WB> Gee, I do believe scientists thru the use of very expensive telescopes
WB> are seeing the creation of world's far out into space.

Even with those high dollar telescopes, all they can see is dim glows and
points of light, where you or they come up with creation of worlds is
purely unsupported conjecture and opinion.  

WB> ..there must be some starting point for domething.[sic] And it sure aint
WB> god.  That's the most laughable story I have heard yet.. God had to be

Well, Mr Barbarian, if you are so certain it *isn't* Gods doing, you must
have solid evidence to prove whatever theory it is that you subscribe to.
Please enligten us as to what this cold, solid evidence is. Or was that
a mere assertion and unscientific opinion of yours seeping out again?
You must at one point in your life stop and ask yourself something. It will
be along the lines of "Do I get told how everything is, or do I
search myself?" If you begin to honestly search for the truth, you may 
just find it. God really wants you to, but you must do it on your own and 
in earnest. If you seek him, he will reveal himself to you.
God loves you so much he sent his only son to die for you so that you 
had a chance to be with him. Don't throw eternity away for the sake of
other people's folly.

Message: 7805
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Question?
Subject: Matter
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 21:03:04

Physical fact # 1:
"Matter can neither be created nor destroyed"
 
Question:
Following sciences own set of rules, how then did matter create itself?
 
Summation: The atheist foundations exist in the varied sets of beliefs
and opinions held by differing viewpoints and ideas supported by so
many different scientists own theories. They are undeniably still theories
because no scientific facts can support their conclusions. Wild guesses.
By scientists own reasoning, we live in an impossible world. 
This world cannot be because the physical sciences deny its beginnings
in the anals of the popular evolutionist theories.
 
(Hey B.Dog, don't read this, I'm offering hard evidence that all of
the world's scientists aggree upon. So don't feed me this
"It all came from outerspace in a big bang" garbage.)
 
;-)

Message: 7806
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Wild B.
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 21:10:33

Please, before bashing people for their sets of beliefs, examine
your own and justify them before assualting someone else's in
an emotional tirade of insult and innuendo.
 
You still haven't answered how all of the "Space Dust" from your
big bang theory came into being...my point on Matter was missed
by you entirely..your argument is indeed circular.
Read it again; "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed."
Also re-read my previous post, it addresses this issue.
 
Physical fact #2:
Chickens come from eggs. It takes a male and a female to reproduce
another human being.
 
Which came first; the chicken or the egg. (Where did either of them
come from, while you;re at it.)
And;
Two members of each species to create the next generation, what started
the original generation(s) ?
 
Don't forget; Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. This same
fact will refute any evolutionist yMfaith~r/belief system/dogma from
the word "go".
Enjoy.

Message: 7807
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Mike's ravings
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 22:04:34

"Evolution" doesn't talk to the creation of the Universe (or even the
earth).  And I'm sure it was a simple spelling error of "annals", yes?
 
So we haven't got the physics down to explain why the universe looks like it
does right now. We're still searching, still coming up with ideas that can
be tested, throwing away or modifying ideas when evidence shows flaws.
 
You have a book which you claim (by circular reasoning) is the word of your
god.  Other religions have their equally unfounded explanations for the
existence of the universe, the creation of life on earth, etc.  And none of
you are attempting honest verification.

"matter can be neither created nor destroyed" ... really?  What are chemical
or nuclear reactions, then?  Like I said before (or was it a different
board?),  you're forgetting about energy.
 
As far as the chicken-and-egg problem, this ain't such a problem. May
organisms reproduce asexually (even cell division in your body). Sexual
reproduction occurred as a result of mutations.  For the specific
chicken-and-egg problem, clearly the chicken egg was first -- what laid it
(and the father) weren't quite chickens, and the gene mix that resulted was
a chicken egg.  That is, an egg whose embryo would grow up to be a chicken.

Message: 7809
Author: $ Thad Coons
Category: Answer!
Subject: WB/Where?
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 23:31:11

  As I understand it, the Bible suggests that God is Eternal..without
beginning or end. I don't think He has chosen to elucidate much further
on His life history. Unless or until He does, you cannot expect debate by
humans to give a reliable answer.

Message: 7810
Author: $ Wild Barbarian
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl/and where
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 23:58:16

is your proof that anything in the bibble ever actually happened????? You
don't believe in science and technology because your blind and narrow
minded.  That I FIND EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE.  I find most so-called christians
hypocritical.  You spout that the bibble is the truth. PROVE it.  I say
carbon dating and science are accurate and reliable.  Prove to me that the
bibble is the same. Or can't YOU.  No, I don't claim to have all of the
answers or even any of them.  But I do claim science to be an exacting form.
And yes we can prove accurately the dates of things thru Carbon dating. 
Where do your sources come from??????  I bet they are from a religious
affiliation.  That in itself makes it predujice.  You will probably wait all
your life to see the truth that for what ever reason you fear.  Maybe you
are afraid that your religion is all a lie.  This you use to deny modern
science.  And yes, I admit that science changes also.  Change is inevidable,
especially as new data and evidence come into view.  But then again I don't
expect you to understand this at all...

Message: 7811
Author: $ Wild Barbarian
Category: Answer!
Subject: darly/good laugh
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 00:05:29

 Hmmm...Are you a commedian by proffession??????  If not, maybe you should
be.  Yes time, chance (for a great part) and random process do tplay a large
part in the process of change.  The evidence?  The movement of the earth's
crust, volcanoes, earthquakes.  They depend on many factors occurring
togather, at or near the same time.  They are both destructive and
constructive proccess that are forever changing what the earth looks like. 
Your statement about protien needing DNA is TOTALLY WRONG.  Protien is the
basic building block of DNA.  Ask any high school biology teacher.  And that
one about the chicken coming first..... Ya, suuuuuuure you can prove
it.....Maybe I should take you to the horse track with me this year....With
that kind of knowledge and foresite, I could becomome very rich.....

Message: 7812
Author: $ Wild Barbarian
Category: Answer!
Subject: Darly/to keep
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 00:07:22

you from being miserable in your delema about the accurracy of science. 
Besides inquiring minds want to know....

Message: 7813
Author: $ Wild Barbarian
Category: Answer!
Subject: Mr Carter/Number one
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 00:15:40

 If you care to read the scientific journals with an OPEN mind you would see
the evidence.  Number two DON't PREACH to me.  Your crap about "DO I get
told how everything is or do I search for myself" is about as narrow minded
as you can be.  The told how all is seems that the bibble is the only thing
there is... BULL.  If God is so loving and caring why has he abandoned the
human race?  Should I throw your idea of eternity (whatever that may/may not
be) for YOUR folly..... Sorry, afraid not....... And believe me I am very
much my own person.  That's one reason I don't believe in any kind of
magically appearing god....

Message: 7814
Author: $ Wild Barbarian
Category: Answer!
Subject: Mike C/Me insult
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 00:20:54

 other?????  I'll stop when you do.  Your the one that seems bent on the
emotions of others.  
 Maybe you should answer some of your own questions, before you ask someone
elses.  In fact Where did the first eggs to produce humans and 99.999% of
all other living creatures come from???????  A rib is a heck of a long way
from an egg...

Message: 7815
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 00:39:51

I don't believe in the Christian God of the Bible.  Mine is much more
up-to-date.

Message: 7816
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: posts
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 00:49:34

Some very good posts here, excellent in fact.

X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 4958
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: HOT-SEX !
Subject: Pee-Wee
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 13:43:57

Compared to some of the stuff James Brown did, Pee-Wee is a saint.  And
look how much support he got.  Free James Brown.  Fine.

 
FREE PEE-WEE HERMAN!

 
(Hey, I know he's not in jail!  But it sounds good!)

Message: 4959
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer !
Subject: Yeah...
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:26:56

That's right.  James Brown abused his wife and evidently that is ok with
most people since he is "the king of R&B" or because the cops were being
"racist".  Thing is, if this was someone in Guns & Roses, no one would care.
That fact that Pee Wee did shows for kids, it unexcusable behavior.

Message: 4960
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer !
Subject: Melissa
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 21:21:23

If it was a guns-n-roses buffoon doing that you're right, it woul{n't
matter. To most folks anyway.
But when parents of young children expose their kids and place their
trust in baby sitters, school teachers and yes, impressionable characters
like Pee-Wee, Mickey Mouse and Donald duck, they will violently object
to occurences like the one in question. I gather you would not mind
if your 5 year old daughter or son sat and watched porn?
I would. But that's just me.
And there's lots of people out here with the same views I have.
It's the same reason why there aren't any shows made for children
hosted by Charles Manson. We have the good common sense of years of
parenting to tell us plainly that people can influence young children
to change their behaviour.
If we take your arguments further than the scope of Pee Wee, 
we should also show kids orgies, snuff flicks, drug and gang violence
and wife bashing by druken actors.  Why not?
It seems in your opinion that all of this is just pure, clean good ol
entertainment..so why exclude the kids?

Message: 4961
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Mike?
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 22:13:48

Who is suggesting that we show videotapes of PeeWee's weewee on Saturday
mornings?
 
Can't you distinguish between a character and a body of work and the actor
behind it all?  Because the guy goes into a XXX-rated theatre you decide
he's not fit to entertain your kids from the other side of a TV?
 
Then again, I guess that Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Charles Keating, and
many other have been held to similar standards.

Message: 4962
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Pee Wee, et al
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 01:00:42

Everybody has to cum sometimes.  I see no particular threat to someone going
into an adult xxx theatre and pounding their pud, pulling their balogna,
choking the chicken or whatever semi-private, almost to be expected act they
perform.  It's far better than raping someone.

Pee Wee was visiting his parents in town and he found himself quite in
need of sex.  Perhaps he got a wiff of some beautiful girl who happened to
be in the part of her cycle that causes females to emit a irresistable
scent.  So, he rushed down to XXX, not knowing anyone in town he could
readily fuck, and beat off.  Slippery stuff.  He could have rented a tape I
suppose, taken it to his parents house and did the same but would mom and
pop have really understood?  Sometimes when a human is in need of sex, they
are in need, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Fucking with Ma Nature can be a really rough experience.

Public Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 77385
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie/77375
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 05:13:04

 I was merely contradicting your statement in an earlier post that said
there was no porn in the "good old days".

Message: 77386
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: B.Dog/PeeWee
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 05:16:12

 I think the character is blown, whether Reubens wanted it or not. His rep
as a childrens entertainer is toast.

Message: 77387
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: THAD-COOKIN NUMBERS
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 07:36:08

> I don't get the impression that their problems with rapists and
> child molesters are 'hatched' in order to get more money for
> the department.
 
  No, not entirely, of course.  What I'm referring to is the kind of general
cooking of numbers any manager (in either public- or private-sector
endeavors) worth his salt will try to do.
  It goes like this:  The PD sets a series of goals (Not quotas!  They're
different, although it was never satisfactorily explained to me how.) for
each year.  It is, contrary to what one might usually think, to the
Department's benefit to NOT meet those goals.  When budget time comes, the
Chief says, "Well we didn't meet our goal for porno arrests, but that's
because we had to spend so much time (in court/on that big murder case/on
administrative duties.  (Pick whatever works best.))  We know the problem's
a big one, and we know we've made a dent in it.  If we just had the money
for a few more men and resources we could really do a lot better.  So, I've
put in for an X-percent increase..."
  Amazingly enough, the argument works even if the goal is by some
unfortunate circumstance achieved:  "I think if we had a few more resources
we could wipe this problem out for good!"
  I spend 12 years as a civilian employee of law enforcement agencies.  I
helped prepare budgets.  Don't trust their numbers.

Message: 77388
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: BEAU-ANALYZING P.W.
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 07:36:50

> So much for the "Time to blow the character" theory.
 
Actually, I'd think that would be expected.  When things get really bad for
a person, doesn't he or she fall back on what's worked in the past.
 
Rubens may hate Pee Wee because Pee Wee's all he's got.

Message: 77389
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: The SYSOP Speaks
Subject: ther BBS list
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 10:42:07

        I have made a change in the list as suggested by Thad Coons 
and Beauregard Dog....  PLEASE check it out for errors...
        AND..... if there is a change in this list...someone should let me
know!  

        Thanks! *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif- 

Message: 77390
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pee Wee's Career
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 13:16:13

      Chock him up in the Hall of Shame next to Phoenix's own Edmus Scarey.

Message: 77391
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Question?
Subject: Lasta
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:06:54

Ever heard of Innocent until proven guilty?  

Message: 77392
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Question?
Subject: Lasta
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:29:27

Nah, God didn't put that in the bible.

Message: 77393
Author: $ Wild Barbarian
Category: Answer!
Subject: Sandy Marlin/Or
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 15:00:24

 as violent either for that matter....  I think that for most Islamics there
is very little to do out in the middle of the deset but sell oil and fight
each other... GRIN
 Before everyone on this board jumps down my throat, I am being most
sarcastic....

Message: 77394
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hawley / 77391
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 17:00:46

     You are right.  Forgive me.

Message: 77395
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Melissa
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 20:19:32

Yes, actually, the principal of innocent until proven guilty
is all through the bible. The adherents to Guilty until proven innocent
is mankind.
 
It would be easily provable that you subscribe to the same, given
your previous responses to accusations made against religion in
general.
 
Look at the log in your own eye before picking at the splinters in
Daryls.

Message: 77396
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: Dean on porn
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 20:45:52

DH> Pornography, at least the kind most people would enjoy, depicts sex as
DH> being both possible and enjoyable outside the rigid theist's rules, 
DH> and yet suggests that it might be enjoyed without threat or harm. 
Please explain where the Bible and Christianity labels "sex" as threatening
or harmful. Your assertions are both unfounded and ludicrous.
Also, explain "what most people enjoy". There are no "rigid theist rules".
There are warnings and guidelines, much like what our surgeon general does,
to help you avoid the perils of casual sex. Anyone foolish enough to
laugh at the statistics and ignore the warnings deserves what they get.

DH> It's seductive images [porn] dispute the religious conviction that such

Pictures in porn books don't convey the dangers of social diseases,otherwise
they wouldn't sell well. People are usually turned off by rotting appendages
and puss. How you say it "disputes religious conviction" is irrational.
It doesn't ever address religion or the warnings therin.

DH> doings can only make one miserable.. It hints that sex might be enjoyed 

I don't know about you and your wife, but me and mine don't need pictures
of naked strangers to stimulate our sexual passions for each other.
There's no religious conviction that sex is un-enjoyable. Please state your
opinions correctly, instead of fallaciously making facts from them.

DH> ...without destroying one's relationships or health. 

Sex in marriage builds that marriage into a stronger bond. Sex between
strangers has increasingly become life threatening, or have you read the
news [about AIDS, Syphillus, Herpes and Gonarreah] lately? Perhaps not.
Most if not all men and women would tend to aggree that if their mate 
slept around with others it would destroy the relationship between them.
I suppose you and your wife are different in this respect?

DH> [porn] also makes the theists jealous just to think about anyone doing
DH> what their own repressive mythology forbids to them.

My "repressive" religion tells me what can happen if I sleep around or
engage in sex with beasts, the same gender or complete strangers.
I'm not in the least "jealous" as you may wish me to be, in fact, after
5 years I can only say that sex is so much better that I have no desires
to ruin a good relationship with a disease infested one-night fling.
I have found a good amount of fullfillment in my marriage; something that
porn addicts don't get because they're constantly searching for more.
 
Perhaps this is where the real jealousy is, where I have fullfillment
and many others do not.
The only way to true fullfillment is through Christ, not nude pictures
of children and strangers.

DH> rare and illegal abominations [such] as child pornography.

Oh? So you have a limit as to what you consider obscene and what you would
classify as clean? Amazing. Did you know that all of your arguments
could justify child pornography just like you would try to justify your
own tastes and morals? A lover of child porn would view you just like you
view people of religious conviction. To me, you are one in the same,
both using weak arguments to justify your own shallow moral values.

DH> Violent or degrading pornography exists to a much larger extent
DH> in the minds and utterings of moral crusaders than 

I can't speak for moral crusaders, I don't see how you could either, but
personally what I find offensive is someone who would go around broadly 
labelling my wife and I as evil, violent, jealous and regressive soley 
because we beleive in a loving God who cares for his creations and follow 
a moral code set out to protect us from things like AIDS and other pitfalls.
The problems resulting from use and abuse of pornographic materials cannot
be heaped upon the world religions. That kind of mentality belongs to the
irresponsible and is their sole domain. Fortunately there are more people 
with common sense than there are Dean Hathaways. Otherwise we'd have
police arresting people attending church for praying instead of patrolling
problem areas like bars, porn shops and other drug dealing sites.
-See you later.

Message: 77399
Author: $ Thad Coons
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/James W.
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 23:06:09

  Paul, I think, mentioned his behavior on the Ark. That is one piece of
evidence. Also, I think he is a liar... When I had discussions with him, he
was presenting things as what I believed, when he had good reason to know
that what he was presenting was not what I actually believed.

Message: 77400
Author: $ Thad Coons
Category: War!
Subject: Porn 2/4
Date: 08/04/91  Time: 23:12:18

  Third, Ann, I will grant that there are sick people who would go from
to violent extremes regardless of whether or not there was porn...
That doesn't mean that porn doesn't influence them in that direction.
There was too porn when you were a kid. You just couldn't get it at the
Circle K or at the nearest bookstore or family theater...
  Fourth, Gordon, I follow and agree with you up to a point, but if
you are going to claim that porn does not 'deviate' people, we begin
to part company. I KNOW better. Consider, for instance, that a person
with a knowledge of mathematics or business law will be able to
imagine things in their fields more clearly and more vividly than
an untrained person, and would even be able to imagine things that
would never occur to such an untrained person. Ideas will occur to
those who are steeped in pornography that would NEVER occur to most
people who have never seen it, and since, as you say, acting out is
'better' than mere fantasy...
  If chemistry or language were as enticing as pornography, believe me,
there would be a lot more chemists and linguists. If porn were presented
to children as natural and normal (as some seem to be advocating), we
would very quickly have a society made up largely of perverts of all
persuasions and varieties.

  Fifth, Dean has corrected me by reminding me that the real danger of
porn is not so much that it produces the grosser sorts of perverts.
If I may quote, "Pornography, at least the kind most people would enjoy,
depicts sex as being both possible and enjoyable outside the rigid
theist's rules, and yet suggests that it might be enjoyed without threat
or harm. Its seductive images dispute the religious conviction that
such doings can only make one miserable. ... It hints that sex might
be enjoyed just for what it is, without destroying one's relationships
or health."
  I really couldn't have put it better myself. Very seldom in pornography
will you find anyone catching AIDS or any venereal diseases; seldom
will you find single women getting pregnant and then being abandoned by
their lovers, being left to raise their children with insufficent means
and education; seldom will you see one of the partners gettin bored
with the other(s) and leave for 'greener pastures' elsewhere; seldom
is there heartbreak, disappointment, or misery, because someone you
trusted has betrayed you. (a la Martina). Good sex cures all...  Go
ahead and enjoy yourself...who cares what the consequences might be?

    These are just some of the grosser and more visible consequences
of the kind of behavior which pornography portrays. There are other
and more subtle ones, which suggests that there are sounder reasons
for the 'rigid theist's rules' which Dean derides than he is willing
to consider.
    Finally, (for this series), If I were a gambling man, I would lay
money that an exit poll of an 'adult' bookstore would show a great
majority of men...not women.  Household slave to sex toy is not much
of a promotion for women... or is that too much of an extreme radical
feminist idea for a male chauvinist like me to entertain? How many
women (or men, either, for that matter) are valued in pornography
for anything but their sexual prowess? Truly an ennobling concept
of humanity! 

Message: 77403
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: porn
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 01:16:02

I think that everyone at one time or another has looked for porn.  I know
that I did.  The times I looked the most were the times I was without a
companion.  

Believe it or not some people seem to have great difficulty finding a
companion.  I guess you could say that porn can become their life.

Even priests need companions, one way or another.

Marry an ugly person and you may be saving a child.  Some people are
pleasant looking on the outside but can be very emotionally scarred from
childhood experiences and they can even consider themselves as an ugly
person.

The human race is sick.  The cure seems far away.  It will only come about
when we as a race learn charity.  Building more prisons will just cause more
ugliness in our world, not more beauty.  Prison guards and related staff are
affected by this ugliness and they sooner or later develop unhealthy
attitudes.  

Message: 77404
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Joke
Subject: Extraterrestrial
Date: 08/05/91  Time: 01:19:25

What do extraterrestrials call this earth?   (A) Devil's Island.