Happy Easter!
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Nick Naym on 5 Apr 2010 17:49 In article 00A9B869.FE1A8C8B(a)SendSpamHere.ORG, <VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG> at wrote on 4/5/10 5:00 PM: > In article <C7DFC570.58126%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, Nick Naym > <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> writes: >> In article slrnhrk7hl.2udv.ianji33(a)zenatode.org.uk, Ian Gregory at >> ianji33(a)googlemail.com wrote on 4/5/10 1:30 PM: >> >>> On 2010-04-05, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap(a)shermpendley.com> wrote: >>>> Ian Gregory <ianji33(a)googlemail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> There is no "other side", a fact which >>>> >>>> ... is a belief, not a fact. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. >>> >>> Whatever. I believe that it is a fact. >>> >>> Ian >> >> >> Do you also believe in angels? > > I do! I've seen them in Anaheim, CA. I meant the ones with gossamer wings, not baseball bats. -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.3)
From: Nick Naym on 5 Apr 2010 17:51 In article michelle-3B98B4.14051205042010(a)news.eternal-september.org, Michelle Steiner at michelle(a)michelle.org wrote on 4/5/10 5:05 PM: > In article <C7DFC567.58126%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, > Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > >> He (hmmm..."She?") sure has a massive ego, and (at one time, at least) >> expected Sacrificial Lambs in return for good favor. > > God must be male, if he expected only lambs; a woman would have expected > diamonds, rubies, emeralds, and minks. I know some men who would expect them as well. :o -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.3)
From: Mike Rosenberg on 5 Apr 2010 18:06 John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > > Taking the Bible as a whole, and using it as my only source, I would > > conclude that God has multiple personality disorder. > > The Lord loves you Mike and wants to save you from your sins. Read up on the blind men and the elephant, John. Yes, in your view of the whole picture extrapolated from a very small piece of it, this is what you believe, but what you believe is totally irrelevant, except by shear coincidence, from what actually is. > This comment is inappropriate. It's certainly off-topic for the three newsgroups you posted to, just as your OP was. In that context, though, it's every bit as appropriate as your post. Don't go around forcing your opinion on others and then say it's "inappropriate" for others to respond with their opinions. -- My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_9pudbFisE> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
From: Mike Rosenberg on 5 Apr 2010 18:06 John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > > Meanwhile, if John would gain a fundamental understanding of the blind > > men and the elephant, he would truly be saved. Really, truly saved. Not, > > of course, in the metaphysical way he uses the term "saved" but in a > > literal way, as he would save all the time and effort he wastes on > > preaching unsubstantiated opinions. If only he were a believer... > > I preach the gospel, yes. Yes, that's exactly the point. It's time you became a believer and were saved. -- My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_9pudbFisE> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
From: Nick Naym on 5 Apr 2010 18:06
In article 4bba5391$0$25188$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com, Warren Oates at warren.oates(a)gmail.com wrote on 4/5/10 5:18 PM: > In article <C7DFC567.58126%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, > Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > >> The folks who regularly play the Lottery use similar reasoning: "Since >> 'someone' has to win, why not buy a ticket?" > > But that's sort of true. Probability suggests that for every 14 million > (say) tickets sold, one will be a winner; it could just as easily be > mine as some bozo's in Port Huron. My point was this: To run your life on the basis of the unknowable or extremely unlikely is pure folly. I can easily apply "Pascal's-wager reasoning" to any argument, to get whatever results I want. -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.3) |