Apollo BBS Archive

Apollo BBS Archive - July 21, 1991


$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 7649
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Misc.
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 05:16:45

Been horrendously busy over the last week.  I only just had time to log in
and copy all the posts, not even to read them -- let alone comment on
anything.

Glad you enjoyed my England piece, Rod.  I'll do some more eventually.  By
the way, an unrelated question:

 RW>>do hits using the CIA.  They all stand a chance of being Jim Morrisoned

Is there some rumor about Jim's death that I'm supposed to know, and don't?

Oh, and better watch your arithmetic on that "7 x 77".  The actual words in
the Bible say you will be forgiven "until seventy times seven".  That's only
490, not 539.  Don't screw up the count, whatever you do, because the 491st
time you go to hell.  Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.  Furthermore,

 PS>>going into a church will make you a Christian to about the same degree
 PS>>that going into a garage makes you an automobile.

I enjoyed this one, Paul.

"My leg's broken, call me an ambulance!"  "OK man, so you're an ambulance."
(Old joke, I know...)

 BB>>...laws that prohibit the users of main thoroughfares from zipping
 BB>>through residential neighborhoods when the pace of rush hour traffic
 BB>>doesn't suit them.

What laws, Bill?  I don't know of any laws that say you can't take whatever
route you choose.  A public street is a public street.  Our taxes pay for
all of them.

I have to admit that cruising on the Metro Parkway could be a nuisance.  I
remember having to physically force my way across it one Saturday night.  I
mean having to drive out into the road and literally FORCE the bastards to
let me out by giving them only two choices: either stop, or crash into me.
They chose to stop.  Wise of them.

Thoroughly agreed with Mike's post about employers refusing to hire people
who smoke, have health risk factors, and so forth.  By coincidence the
Republic printed an article on this topic the very next morning.  Commented
that employers could be discriminating next against drinkers, people who
ride motorcycles, etc.  Employers have NO right to this kind of power over
people's lives.  If life is reduced to that, it's time to get on a rooftop
with a rifle, preferably trained on some corporate headquarters.  But there
is a better way.  The article also mentioned that "the backlash is
beginning": 22 states have already passed laws banning discrimination
against smokers.  This is excellent news.  The American spirit will triumph.

Apro's "Prohiboholics" (wow, that's almost as hard to spell as
"Metropophobobia") starts with the statement in Scientific American that

 AP>>Over the past 200 years, Americans have twice accepted and then
 AP>>vehemently rejected drugs.  Understanding these dramatic historical
 AP>>swings provides perspective on our current reaction to drug use.

The two periods spoken of are the later 1800s, and the 1960s.  The article
does mention alcohol later on, but it would give even more perspective if we
noted that there was also a third period of "acceptance".  From about 1790
to 1830, there was truly massive overuse of alcohol by the U.S. population
as a whole.  The per capita consumption of hard liquor in 1820 was *five*
times as much as it was in 1960.  It's not surprising there was a temperance
movement later in the 19th century.  America is beloved of wild swings.

Lastly, I noticed that during my short period of inactivity, Roger Mann
seems to have disappeared.  But we also have a new $tatus user, the
mysterious "Green Lantern".  Some people seem to think there's a connection
between these two events.

Well, I dunno.  Maybe there is, and maybe there isn't.  I think I'll
disappear from Apollo and get Cliff to re-register me as "Silver Blaze",
"Black Shadow"...  or better still, "Brown Gunk".  Then see how long it
takes y'all to recognize me.

Message: 7652
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Gordon
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 06:53:47

"Brown Gunk"??? Hmmmm .... does have kinda a nice ring to it! Heh 
                             -=*) PEACHES (*=-

Message: 7653
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Kars / Automotive
Subject: Gordon-Streets
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 07:27:04

> What laws, Bill?  I don't know of any laws that say you can't
> take whatever route you choose.
 
I can't quote chapter and verse off the top of my head, Gordon, but there is
an ordinance in Phoenix that was designed to prohibit the use of
neighborhood streets to bypass major arteries.  If you really want
specifics, I'll see what I can find out.

Message: 7654
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Gordon/7X70
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 12:24:32

Opps, I'm over the line and I thought I had a few more to go.  Well, see you
in hell.

Jim Morrison.  Who knows, it's only a theory, a paranoid one at that.  

End of the Universe Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 1909
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Congrats!
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 07:27:49

Convey my congratulations to Sandy, too, Cliff!  It's a good thing lazy bums
like you and me are married to hard-working women, eh?
 
Weren't you folks schooling your boys at home?  Where does she find the time
for all this?
 
And what's happening with the shooting case?

Message: 1910
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Schooling
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 09:23:38

        Both boys will now be attending a Christian School.   Travis, the
older boy attended this one last year and loved it.  Tyler wanted to go so
bad, we decided to let him go.  This freed up Sandy...so, job hunting she
went after being certified by the State as an EMT.

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

Public Bulletin Board command:

Message: 76895
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 07/20/91  Time: 20:50:47

Re:  After all, mocking someone's bald head is a serious offense.

I believe the offense was a lot more serious than that.

Message: 76896
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Religion
Subject: Rod
Date: 07/20/91  Time: 20:52:38

Re:  "Thou shall not kill" is a good example.  What this means to Christians
is this:  It's okay to kill sometimes.

If your point is to show that Christians are a long, long ways from being
perfect, I would have to agree with you on that point.  But I'm trying, and
God is still working with me.  God did say he forgave me all my sins, and I
feel real good about that.  I had an awful lot of sins stacked up.  And I
still sin on a daily basis, but I'm getting better.  I can't speak for all
other Christians, but I'm sure God is working with them too.

Message: 76897
Author: $ Felix Cat
Category: Religion
Subject: Peaches
Date: 07/20/91  Time: 20:53:59

I know you asked these question of Daryl, but I would like to give you my
input too.  As you requested, I will quote nothing from the Bible.  I feel
you are sincere in most of your questions, and I will try to be sincere in
my answers.

Re:  I cannot and do not believe that all Christians believe the way you do.
I cannot believe that all Christian wives believe it either. It is things
such as this that keep me thinking how much man has corrupted the Bible

I'm sure everyone knows that all Christians, men and women, do not agree on
what the Bible says, but that does not mean the Bible is corrupted.

The Supreme Court Judges do not agree on what the Constitution says, but
that does not mean the Constitution is corrupted.

Re:  I cannot conceive of any intelligent person NOT questioning some of the
Bible.

I'm sure most Christians question some of the Bible.  That's why they study
it.  That's one of the reasons I study it.

Re:  Are the souls of man and woman the same in God's eye - look the same to
Him - mean as much to Him? Does He want the woman sinner to be saved as
badly as a man? Did Jesus die horribly on the cross for women as well as
men?

I would say yes to all 5 questions in the aspect of contrasting men and
women.

Re:  Is the Ten Commandments for women to follow also?

The Ten Commands were given to the Hebrew people, men and women.

Re:  I ask you .... then what does it matter who is head of the household?

I would rather say "head of the family."  Someone has to be in charge.  If
you say both can be in charge at the same time, I would disagree.  That
would only work as long as both fully agree on all things.  As soon as there
is a disagreement, there is a problem.

Re:  Who sinned first?

Eve did.

Re:  Who has long hair or short?

The important thing here is the reason or attitude of why one wears anything
long or short, etc.  If the attitude is one of rebellion, it is wrong.

Re:  Who preaches in the Temples, churches, etc?

I don't not think women should teach or have authority over men in spiritual
matters.  One reason being they are more gullible than men in spiritual
things.  I have learned a lot from women.  My wife has taught me a lot of
things over the years.  I value her opinion and consider her a wonderful
gift from God.

Re:  Who keeps silent in church? Or that woman was born of man? Or that
women are subjected to their mates?  Or if the widow stays unmarried or not?
What has ANY of this to do with salvation? Christ dying on the cross?
Heaven? God?

The Bible gives us a standard for living.  It also tells us how to be
reconciled with God.  What does one have to do with the other?  If one is
not reconciled with God, all the standards in the Bible or even in the world
is of naught.  Once we are reconciled with God, we should strive to live a
life pleasing to him.  The Bible tells us what pleases God.

Re:  If Paul was guided by God's hand - then why, in his letter to the
Roman's does he tell them the slave's souls are just as important as theirs
- yet fails to tell them to set the slaves free?

I don't know for sure.

Re:  So how come with women in 'their given role's are so much more
restrictive than men in their roles?

Maybe "restrictive" isn't the right word.  The roles are different, but
men's roles are restrictive too.  Maybe what you're really asking is why God
designated the husband as head of the home.  Women can be head of the home
too under certain conditions.  I know women who have done wonderful jobs as
head of the home.

Re:  You really believe that "Eve caused Adam to sin"?

No.  Adam knew exactly what he was doing when he sinned.  And God held him
fully accountable for it.  Eve was tricked into sinning, but Adam knew what
he was doing.  They both sinned the same sin, but for different reasons.

Re:  So you believe that women don't belong on the pulpit because it is the
will of God er?

Yes.

Re:  So this is saying that Jesus dying on the cross isn't enough for women
- they must bear children etc?

I disagree.

Re:  I chuckled when I read that your wife makes more money than you do and
you still have the nerve to say you are head of that household!

The Bible doesn't set money making as the criteria for head of the home, and
rightly so.  That's about on par with saying the man who can belch, fart,
drive the fastest, pick up the most women, etc. is the best man.  And I know
men who believe that.

Re:  I ask again - is the woman's soul so much lessor than a man's that she
can't be a role model also in her own home, to the children she bore? Is her
soul not representing the Heavenly Father? She can spend her life in her
home - making it a beautiful haven - raising her children, giving a lot of
love and she isn't even the head of that household?

All souls are equal in the sight of God.  Both man and woman should be a
good role model to their children.  This is independent of being the head of
the home.

Re:  balancing the check book - grocery shopping -what is best on
rearranging the furniture - should she use plastic or cloth diapers -
checking with him before she buys that blouse or what?? What if she has a
college education? Should she still check with the head first on these
regular matters?

I see no reason why the wife should have to check with the husband on every
detail of life.  That would be foolishness.  My wife doesn't, and I don't
expect her to.  That is not what being head of the home means to us.

Re:  A home should be shared equally with all that create it!

I agree.

Re:  Idealy, both should be the ruling members - but sometimes the man is
the guiding person, the stronger one,  but also sometimes the woman is and
she should have that right to be who she is  and not be subjected to what
some Dude wrote in the Bible as God's word over 2,000 years ago!

I disagree.

Re:  Why are you against women preachers?

Actually I don't like to hear anyone preach, but I like to listen to a good
teacher.

Re:  If their words are inspiring and they bring souls to God, why should
they be banned? Isn't that the purpose of preaching?

If you or any other lady wishes to preach, go for it.  Isn't that kind of
what you're doing here on Apollo?

Re:  Do you think women do not comprehend the words of God as well as men
do?

Some do; some don't.

Re:  if you take away my private parts that differ from a man's, isn't what
is left the same as a man - a soul? If you take away a man's private parts
that differ from a woman's, isn't what is left the same - a soul?

Yes.

Message: 76906
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: War!
Subject: Feministic Drivel
Date: 07/20/91  Time: 21:49:45

I laugh at the open folly of the recent posts here and in newsprint of late.
I don't know what it is that drive some women to such idiocy, but then
again, I'm not one of them so I honestly don't know.
The females are now revolting [complaining] against words like:
"GIRL", "The Fairer Sex". These words have been turned into insults by
a few radical whimperers who have some hell bent reason to blame all of
their problems on men.
Let me say this much; If I weren't interested in a fairer sex, I'd be a
faggot.
I've worked with women in the time I've been here in the States. In some
jobs they clearly are incapable of performing as well as a man. Clear,
clean, factually simplistic. I don't begrudge them for it one bit. 
Women are different and no amount of rhetoric or wretching will change
that fact one iota. Women are better at some things than men are,
Men are better than women at some things too. It's all a matter of
finding what you do best and going for it. This cannot be achieved
by forced EEOC quotas, fairy tale pampering of statistics or make
believe stories by a few women who obviously snort testosterone and
wear army boots.  Granted, there are some exceptions...which is why
this world is so wonderfully multifaceted; nothing is the same and
never will be. Not even mathematics is perfect and accurate. 
SO to expect that women will *always* outperform or equal a mans performance
it's a plain, bald-faced lie perpetrated by militant moaners bent on
seeking larger paychecks.

Let's assume some very conservative figures here;
80% of the men are physically stronger and have a higher pain and
stamina threshold for strenuous activity.
This would tell us that given equal grounds, equal jobs and equal duties,
a man will outperform his female counterpart evertime in a wide list
of strenous and physically demanding jobs. DO the feminist militia
mention this? A: NO. They discount such male propoganda.
 
Where I work, I have noticed some interesting work-related differences
on how a woman handles the same situations ; The result is a big
difference. DO the feminist militia acknowledge this? A: NO. It's
simply more male propoganda.
Females handles things quite differently. Reason is clear and simple and
quite undeniable, they think differently. Scientifically proven.
SO the outcomes from decisions made by either sex will, almost always,
turn out differently. Now, some would argue that the end result here is
what is important. True. That if the same goals were achieved by either
a male decision or female is unimportant? NO. Because the route to those
goals is a different path. NOT THE SAME.
Which is better? 
AHA! Here's the crux! In some cases it'd be better for one sex's thinking
to make the decision based upon that mindset.

The majority of women think more along chanels of how things, people
and functions *feel* to them. They are born into this world as a different 
species in many ways. The obvious, outward appearences are notthe end of
them. SOme would want you to think so.
Men think more on the nuts and bolts line. The logic so to speak. 
They think about subjects and how things interact and affect others in the
processes....not how they feel. This is where God's plan comes in...
for the female to compliment the male and vice versa.
So that each may learn from the other..that moderation between the two
develope into one. Men rarely have the same kind of compassion a woman
has naturally. Women rarely have the natural ability to ACT and do
things regardless of the situation or atmosphere. 
People, there's good uses to be made of these unique abilities from
each sex. To come out and say they don't exist, don't matter or even
deny a difference is to lie.
Lie to yourself and deny any possibility of being fulfilled or content
over a long period of time. 
It's a sad state of affairs. 
Q: Why aren't women chosen to lead in preaching, leader of households etc?
A: Because their emotions can so severely change their desicions that
bad and harfull results would occurr due to inconsistent policies. If
there's a monkey on women's backs; it's their emotional rollercoaster
and how it affects them and the folks around them. They're naturally
inconsistent. Dangerous dangerous dangerous in many situations.

Message: 76909
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Religion
Subject: Ann on religion
Date: 07/20/91  Time: 22:38:37

Wow! You have Daryl on the ropes! Where's the KO punch?
 
(BTW, perhaps Daryl is against female preachers so he won't have to compete
against them for postings within his church?)

Message: 76910
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Question?
Subject: Mike's War
Date: 07/20/91  Time: 22:51:51

Been shooting steroids?  That was quite a rampage.

Message: 76911
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: B.Dog
Date: 07/20/91  Time: 23:05:42

No, Actually,  I took some Estrogen pills and went on the rag.

Message: 76912
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: My Dinner with...
Subject: MIKE CARTER
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 00:47:23

RE: Mike's series on women.....
  
     I nominate this recent series by Mr. Carter for the Apollo "Most Fucked
Post of 1991" award.  
     Mr. Burkett, please take note of this nomination.

Message: 76913
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: Men & Women
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 01:20:42

I do not see any difference between woman and man except on a physical
level.  One is not better than the other.

Our ancestory caused primilarly the male of the species to hunt and
consequently became more physically powerful than the woman who, because she
bears babies, is usually more emotionally stronger.

Woman is equal to man on every level and man to woman but so what.  When a
man and a woman emotionally team up you see a lot of strength in that
relationship.

One of the best things that happened to me is one time I referred to Jasmine
as a housewife and she hit me and she meant it.  I've never called or
thought of her in that light again.  The hit didn't hurt physically because I
am a man and I can take it but don't ask me to have a baby, that I would be
afraid of doing.  And then nursing them to fullness (oh, I forgot we now
have a steady cow milk supply).  Wow, I couldn't do that or I wouldn't want
to.  

The day any of you think of your spouse or anyone else for that matter as
being lower than you then you are in serious emotional trouble.   You are
also, if religious, being against every main religion on the planet, save
for a few.
So, don't draw a line between you or anyone else because you have not walked
a mile in that person's shoes. -Rod

Message: 76915
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cat/10 Comm.
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 01:29:52

You asked that I give you an examply of what may be vile about Christianity
and here is my reply:

1.  Have no false gods before you.  (A)  How in the hell do you tell if you
have the right one?  Do you grap the first fool who comes along because IT
managed to speak inside your head?  You thought, something is speaking
inside my head and this isnt't NORMAL so you think that it must be God.
Gee, that's smart....how do you possible know that it is the right god? 
Your religion teaches that the evil one is crafty....don't you feel that a
arch-angel could easily fool a mere, half-brained, human animal?  Huh?

2. Don't kill.  (A)  I've already mentioned this one a half dozen times but
I'll add....if you feel guilty about killing someone while in the military,
for instance, just go and see the minister of your particular faith.  All
will be forgiven and you will be encouraged to go out and continue killing,
not stopping.  Get it?  But now we have learned that Don't Kill means Don't
kill sometimes.

Oink, oink.

And you are told to Turn Your Cheek.  Paul Savage feels that this means only
once because his rule book doesn't express how many times a so-called
Christian is supposed to turn it.  And Daryl says that his leader always
turned the other cheek but in reality, yes it says that and yes it says that
Jesus threw out the temple merchants.  But who cares?  That entire book is
bogus except perhaps some early writings found about our early ancestors and
their belief in what is?  God did everything in those days, at least the
people thought so.  They even sacrificed on a regular basis.  Of course the
priests got the 10 per-cent tithe and lived on it, usually well.  Sheep
sacrificing was one of the priests favorite kind.  They kept around a jar of
green jelly for such occasions.

The whole religion is founded in un-truths.  It is a party line much like a
capatialistic one or a socialist one, never a proletariat one.  Remember
that.

Message: 76917
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: In search of
Subject: Before the Flood
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 05:27:34

Thanks for the info on the radioactive dating, Rod.  I suspected some such
method might be useful in fixing dates of eruptions in the past, but since
it's only possible to fix the date of an event plus or minus a few years --
more probably decades -- I'm still intrigued by that unequivocal "1116 AD".

Someone was saying that there was a whole lot more volcanic activity a few
thousand years back.  Now I wonder.  I'm just going by what I think I know
off the top of my head, but I haven't heard of any definite answer to why we
have ice ages.  Why should the earth get noticeably warmer and cooler over
comparatively short geological periods?  It's not as if the earth keeps
wobbling nearer the sun every so often.  And you don't get extra heat from
nowhere.  So what causes it?  Do we have lots of extra greenhouse effect
during the interglacial periods, to retain more solar heat?  Or is something
blocking the sun's heat from reaching the earth during the ice ages?  Is it
masses of cosmic debris moving through the solar system?  Or is it all those
volcanoes letting loose at once and blocking out the sun with clouds of dust
in the atmosphere?

That doesn't seem a bad solution, since it's also reasonable for volcanic
activity to run in cycles, like the ice ages.  Perhaps pressure builds up
inside the earth, then it all lets go at once, and then it takes another
50,000 years or so for the pressure to build up again.

It's an interesting thing that the sea level seems to be higher today than
it was 10,000 or more years ago.  Great Britain used to be joined to
continental Europe by a land bridge, somewhere around 7,000 BC.  And then
there are all those Native Americans, both North and South, with their
slightly Oriental cast of features bearing out the fact that their remote
ancestors came from somewhere in Asia.  Did they come over a land bridge
somewhere round about where the Aleutian Islands are now?  We're looking
back to the end of the last Ice Age, when the sea level was presumably lower
because of all that water being locked up in the great glaciers and the
extended polar ice caps.

It's also noteworthy that with Man being around in some form for -- how
long?  several million years? -- civilizations suddenly started springing up
in different places, quite independently, within the same comparatively
short period of time.  The Old World civilizations started in the Middle
East, but Chinese civilization is even older.  Did they arise independently?
And what about the New World civilizations such as the Mayas?  Didn't they
develop independently from what was happening on other continents?  Seems it
was only the Abos who never made it.

Ice ages are not conducive to the development of a civilization -- more to
hiding in caves and hunting large land animals.  When the earth gets warmer,
presto!  Agriculture starts looking like a better idea.

Then if you pick a good fertile spot you might have a little spare time to
sit around doing things like building stone walls, and inventing gadgets,
and learning to read and write from scratch, and devising the income tax.

Climatic events are always key influences in controlling how people live.
So what about the Flood?  Mike commented that the Bible says this happened
about 5,000 years ago.  The evidence I know of suggests there was a big
flood in the Middle East -- perhaps elsewhere too -- about 4,000 BC, so the
Biblical date wouldn't be too far out.  And there are other flood legends
besides the Bible's.  Of course, if we went back far enough we would be
bound to find other floods, as well.
 
The melting of the glaciers was itself a massive flood, if a slow one.

It doesn't pay to dismiss the Bible entirely on the grounds that some parts
of it are inconsistent and others hard to believe.  We just have to
interpret it a bit.  The Bible is the source of much reliable history.
Until the last century, for example, it was the only evidence for the
existence of the Hittites.

When Job mentioned ice and snow in the Middle East, and possibly glaciers,
we have no reason to dismiss it all out of hand.  But we have to take into
account that these words may record a racial memory far older than Bishop
Ussher's dating.

Message: 76920
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Felix/fame
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 05:38:05

 Pardon my grammatical slip. Infamous would be correct. Or perhaps
notorious.
 They all add up to the same result. Roger Mann = Green Lantern. He can deny
all he wants, he is fooling nobody.

Message: 76921
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Politics
Subject: Bill/probation
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 05:46:48

 If every facet of intensive probation is faithfully carried out, it could
be an effective alternative to incarceration in cases of non-violent crimes.
It is my understanding, however, that due to the overwhelming case loads of
the probation officers, they are unable to carry out their duties as they
should. If that is true, one must wonder as to the efficacy of the program.
 I agree totally with the concept of reserving prison space for the violent
criminals, but something needs to be done to facilitate effective
alternatives concerning supervision.

Message: 76922
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: The SYSOP Speaks
Subject: Censored Message
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 06:25:57

Yes, I used the "C" word.  Peter Petrisko's message number 76912 was
censored by Yours Truly.  It contained an obscenity which we cannot allow on
the Public BBS.
 
Sorry, Peter.

Message: 76923
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cat on sins
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 06:32:16

So - tell us about your 'daily sinning' Felix!! Heh  -=*) PEACHES (*=-

Message: 76924
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cat on your 9
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 06:47:27

I printed your posts for reviewing later. -=*) PEACHES (*=-

Message: 76925
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Joke
Subject: Carter on women
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 06:50:18

Those posts are exactly what I'd expect from you. I wouldn't even try to
answer them. I still say you need a doctor. 
 

Message: 76926
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Paul-Probation
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 07:26:19

> If every facet of intensive probation is faithfully carried
> out, it could be an effective alternative to incarceration in
> cases of non-violent crimes. It is my understanding, however,
> that due to the overwhelming case loads of the probation
> officers, they are unable to carry out their duties as they
> should. If that is true, one must wonder as to the efficacy of
> the program.
 
Agreed.  And, as a side note, for my rides with Intensive Probation
Supervision officers I was sent to Tucson because Pima County officials
"handle the program better" than in Maricopa County.

Message: 76927
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Religion
Subject: Cat
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 10:08:53

Dear Cat. Thank you for the posts and thank you for thinking I am
sincere in most of my questions - I am.
 
I'm sorry, but I cannot believe the Bible is not corrupted by man's
hand over the centuries. I think it was Paul's thinking, not God's
that moved his pen in many cases!  Such things that I spoke of just
doesn't make any sense if God is a reality. To believe that "God is
no respecter of persons" and then believe what Paul wrote about
women is too contradictory.  Is so clear to me that Paul
incorporated 'society of the times' into his writings.
 
Jesus spent quite a bit of time on earth and His words are in the
Bible. I think he covered everything important and the rest makes
not one bit of difference. I didn't hear Him rattling on about head
of the household or women keeping silent in church or berating Eve
for taking the first bite! Did you?
 
Re: your ... "the Supreme court judges do not agree on what the
Constitution says, but that does not mean the Constitution is
corrupted".
 
A lot of people may differ with you on that with all the amendments.

Re: head of the household - you said ... "Both can't be in charge at
the same time. That would only work as long as both fully agree on
all things."
 
Both can certainly be in charge at the same time - they can mutually
agree! Sure there will be disagreements, but why should the man
ALWAYS get the last word in? It makes more sense that the woman gets
the last word because she is home all the time.
 
Perhaps it would be clearer to describe what it means, what duties
you get when you are the head of the house! Are your words always
law - the final word for example? Are you the one the makes the
decision on how the children are to be raised? Where the funds are
to be spent? You say these things don't apply in your home, but what
is then being the head of the house entail?
 
Re: you disagreing with "they must bear children etc." How can you
disagree with that? it states it right where I said it was in the
Bible in clear, precise words.
 
I'm confused - you seem to be in agreement that woman belong on the
pulpit - which Paul definitely says is a no no - yet you will go
along with this head of the household stuff????.

I will admit something - that it totally rankles me like a
fingernail on a blackboard does when I hear some man state he is
head of the household. It goes entirely against my grain as a human
and as a woman. My first husband felt that way - since I went to a
church that believed in that, I kept my tongue - letting him make
mistake after mistake - bungling up our lives royally - totally
disrupting the harmony of the home until I couldn't stand it another
minute and left the BS$tard! Now, there is NO head of anything
around here and we get along just fine. We both agree that if there
is to be a head of the household, then I am the likely choice since
I have dedicated my life to being a home maker. My husband also
feels that he is not capable of making the final rulings all the
time because he is not right all the time anymore than I am. It is
mutual. If one of us insist on something, which is rare, then the
other backs down because that must be pretty important for that
person to insist!
 
On the other hand, I think it's great that you and Bonnie are happy
with your arraignment. If it works, that's wonderful. It would NOT
for me!

You said re: long hair .." If the attitude is one of rebellion, it
is wrong."
Rebellion against what? What if one wears his hair long is
rebelling? So what? How bad is that?
You didn't comment on Paul's .... "but any woman that prays or
prophesies with her head unveiled, dishonors her head"  or "any man
who prays or prophesies with his head covered, dishonors his head"
"... it is disgraceful for a women to be shorn or shaven" Or "that
nature teaches that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to
him" I know what your answer is going to be, but do you in your
heart believe that God took the time to give Paul these mundane,
unimportant revelations for mankind to live by???? AND - if they
are not followed, then you are refused Heaven or at least have God
frown at you??? Good lord, what has this all to do with believing
in Jesus, going to Heaven and living a proper and good life in the
eyes of God?
I've got a pointed question - a personal one and please don't be
offended because I am not being sarcastic.... you said ... "the
Bible gives us a standard for living ...." From your posts, I
assume you mean what Paul handed down also, right? So, how come
Bonnie's hair isn't long? Your answer could tell me a lot.
Thanks for listening. -=* ANN Amy Simple McPherson Oudin *=-
 

Message: 76931
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Religion
Subject: Rod/Bogus
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 11:00:39

re: priests liking sheep. 
Yes, in fact, the common people were sacrificing in the countryside to
God, and the priests made it illegal to do that. No, they said, only in
the temple at Jerusalem. Otherwise you are worshipping false gods. The
real God lives here in the Holy of Holies. We can prove it. Just touch this
sucker and get 10,000 volts.

Message: 76932
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Religion
Subject: Rod/Christians
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 11:44:52

  I might have just said that if God gave men life, then He has every
right to take it, whenever and in whatever manner He sees fit, and
not bother with trying to judge Him. I will say that if I thought
the caricature that you and other atheists present was an accurate
and faithful representation of Biblical teachings about the nature
and character of God, then I probably would be an atheist myself.

  As to your other comments, it is rather ironic that in the eyes
of many "Christians", I am no more a Christian than you are, because
I believe that God will judge men mostly according to their doings
and conduct, and not their religious professions or pretensions or
lack thereof.

   I think we are both aware that there are so-called Christians
who quote the Bible ad nausem and act like the devil himself.
However, that does not lead me to believe that all Christians are
such hypocrites and that all Christianity is a fraud.

Message: 76933
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Women
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 11:57:08

 Since I do not have $tatus, I am limited in what I am able to
post at one time, and since some of what you have said to Daryl is
pertinent to what I have to say, I want to address some of those
issues.
  After seeing your question about whether, if a wife made as much
as her husband, whether he would still be considered the "head of the
house",  I asked two women whether they would still consider their
husbands the "head of the house" if they made MORE money than he did:
both of them answered "of course". Since one of the women was my wife,
who earns twice what I do, and the other was my immediate supervisor
at work, I must assume that they have something else in mind when they
hear that phrase than what you do.
  Note that in Ephesians, where Paul instructs wives in submission
and obedience to their husbands, he also instructs husbands to
love their wives, even as Christ loved the church, or their own
bodies. I don't think that meant he would approve of husbands
treating their wives like some kind of domestic slave. He had
something else in mind. Remember that Christ taught that "he who
would be greatest among you, let him be your servant" and on one
occasion, went so far as to wash his disciple's feet: something
that I am told was usually a menial servant's or slave's task.
(continued)

Message: 76934
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Short message
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 12:33:46

I've gotta run but I will read the new posts off line and answer tonight.

Gordon...the eruption was on August 2, 1116 at 4:02 A.M.  .  ???
I think the Forest Service dude moved back to New York but perhaps I was on
drugs that evening and perhaps misunderstood the date.  Who knows?

Message: 76935
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: Short Hair & Paul
Date: 07/21/91  Time: 14:06:28

Looking at the history of the human animal I would say that short hair in
the male of the species has not been around long.  Short hair most probably
came about, as a necessity during our numerous wars with each other.

I know that in the trenches during WWI that if you had long hair or a beard
then it was hell keeping the lice away.

In the early days, back when we still believed in the gods we created,
males wore their hair naturally long unless perhaps you were a serf and
needed to be identified.

Probably some landowner was jealous of some of his serf's long beautiful
locks, especially the ones who worked in the household around the women, so
he ordered their hair cut and kept that way.  Much easier to identify a
slave, especially if the same skin color.

In any case, this Paul guy who wrote all these letters is interesting.  A
friend of mine who holds a Ph.D. in anthropology said that it is most
probable that this guy was a homosexual who had a fetish for the young slave
population all with short hair.  They couldn't tell on him.  And he
tried to degrade the female as he felt inadequate because he was born with a
hair lip and stuttered.     -Rod