BLASPHEMY: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
JDay123 at BellSouth.net
Tue Dec 24 17:15:59 EST 2002
John Knight wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:vsu60v89isl5es6mqrqsf66sgv59didstv at 4ax.com...
>> JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
>> >Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> >>JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
>> >>>It is relevant because if they understood the words in the book,
>> >>>they would want the God of Israel which the book describes...
>> >>Why is that necessarily so?
>> >Because for an atheist which by definition believes in no gods, to
>> >come to the realization that there is indeed one God, it would
>> >require an "about face".
>> But that realization is not necessary to understanding the Bible. It
>> IS possibly to treat the Bible as a description of a mythology, to
>> understand it completely (in the intellectual sense), and yet reject
>> the fundamental claims that make it true.
>> >If they came to this reversal and
>> >understood Genesis 1:1 they would see the entire rest of the bible
>> >from a new perspective and new understanding.
>> It is perfectly possible to look at the Bible from that perspective
>> merely by *hypothetically* accepting Genesis 1:1, and then rejecting
>> the hypothesis after having determined that the resulting
>> understanding does not motivate them (personally) to accept the Bible
>> as fundamental truth.
>> >Well, if one doesn't have the attitude Jesus taught us to have in
>> >The Lord's Prayer i.e. "thy will be done" (not my will be done), can
>> >it not be said that one is actually a slave of sin?
>> It can be said, but some people don't believe it.
>> >The whole point of being forgiven and under the blood of Jesus is to
>> >be freed from sin. Thus a believer has more "free will" than a
>> >non-believer who is captured by the devil and is enslaved by sin.
>> No, because the slavery of sin has little to do with the slavery or
>> freedom of will.
>> >Folks in denial say "there is no such thing as sin because sin
>> >requires that one believe in a god that one sins against".
>> But they can be perfectly aware and understanding of the consequences
>> promised by the Bible if it should happen that they are wrong.
>Every single one of your objections was wrong, lojbab, but now we have a
>fresh new perspective for why: fat.
>Being a 400 pounder confirms that you're a fathead, which makes it obvious
>why your "logic" was fathead logic.
>There could be other explanations. After all, there are some skinny jews,
>like Alan Dershowitz, who could spend two millennia in Hell and still not
>So it appears that we need to add one more snivel rights group to our
>collection of uneducables: porkers.
>btw, what percentage of the population are porkers, and how many members are
>there to the National Association for the Advancement of Porkers? When do
>you expect the federal funding to come rolling in? Will you spend it on
>education, or food? Is it your goal to double the condition that guarantees
>you an entitlement to 800 pounds, thus proving that federal funding is
>required, enabling the feds to quintuple NAAP funds? Or will your goal be
>only 600 pounds (an even more achievable "solution")?
I think as of right now, porkers are trying to get larger seats in
airliners. Who knows where they'll go from there.
More information about the Neur-sci