Airman1270

...Religion relies on dogma to sustain faith... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Such as the dogma that believes that life just appeared out of nowhere, with no rational explanation? That a lightning strike triggered the creation of some single-cell thingy, which crawled out of pond scum and set up camp on the shore, etc.? I suppose this could have happened, but there is no evidence/proof that it did. So why do so many college graduates believe this to be fact and defend their (religious) belief by crying "science?" As an aside, Christianity does not rely solely on dogma or speculation. There is a solid body of evidence to back up the claims, but it is near impossible to offer explanation without the conversation being derailed by accusations of "prosyletizing." It has been my experience that many in the atheist/secular camp have never actually examined the evidence, and have little interest in discussing the issue rationally with people who have. Cheers, Jon

...Science should be taught in science class... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Claiming that life began in some random manner we cannot understand is not science. Teaching kids that something came from nothing is not science. Acknowledging that there are two unproven, unproveable theories as to how life may have begun does not contradict the information taught in science class. Cheers, Jon

...It's amazing that the most resistance is met by the one field in biology that has been studied and scrutinized more than any other. A very strong indicator that people are arguing from emotion and a preconcieved notion of what they want the answer to be; not from observation, evidence, experimentation, and analysis... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Perhaps some clarification would be in order. Few argue that there hasn't been any evolution of any kind, nor do they necesarily want the actual science ignored. However. science has its limitations. At the end, it cannot explain how life began. At this point we are dealing with two unproveable theories: One is that life began through some random process, the other is that there was a creator and that intelligent design was involved. This simple statement is factual, yet the secular humanist lobby will stop at nothing to censor this information because they do not want students accepting the possibility that God might exist. When they steer students into accepting their random theory as fact, they are engaging in indoctrination, not education, as their theory does not meet serious scientific criteria, such as observation, evidence, experimentation, and analysis. Once again, the people who want one side taught claim to be open-minded, while the people who want students exposed to both sides are accused of evil motives. Cheers, Jon

Quote>Those who do can recipirocate this respect by keeping their personal lives to themselves . . . One sentence later: >Many "wonderful people" also engage in immoral straight sex (I did once) Perfect. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ You really thought this throwaway comment was worthy of rebuttal? I was talking about the ongoing effort to bring the whole gay thing topic to our attention in the first place. Barring total media fasting, it has been damn near impossible in the past 20+ years to go 3-4 consecutive days without the issue of homosexuality being brought to our attention. One example: In the mid-1990's a woman applied for a job with the Georgia state Attorney General's office. During the interview process she volunteered that she was a lesbian. (Nobody asked.) She eventually did not get the job, then sued, claiming "discrimination." She eventually lost, but caused much social upheaval and uneeded waste of legal resources. All because she approached the matter not as an issue of her own lack of judgement, but as some sort of bigotry because she sticks her tongue in the same place I like to stick mine. Suppose I mentioned these things in a job interview, then didn't get hired. How many lawyers would be lining up to bring my case to court? Cheers, Jon

...Even if the bible says it's ok to smash infants heads on rocks, isolate menstrating women, and sell your daughter into slavery?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If you ever find a pastor or a church that teaches that it's okay to do these things, please report back to us. This will be news. This thread was started because somebody thought a woman in California was claiming that God wants gays killed. Funny how many atheists here are disappointed to learn that this is incorrect, and how determined they are to reject any information that shows this is wrong. Kinda like the reactions of people who have been preaching global warming, only to be told that it's a hoax and that there really is no climate "crisis." Instead of accepting this as good news, they become angry to learn that things aren't as bad as they had been led to believe. Cheers, Jon

...explain to us in detail... _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Now this is interesting. I offered a brief explanation of some basic information and you're demanding details. If I did attempt to provide more details it wouldn't be long before someone accused me of "prosyletizing." If you're really interested in learning more about the Bible there are several practical things you can do that would yield far greater understanding than whatever you'll glean from an internet forum. (These would include actually reading it, as well as talking with a pastor or two who have the knowledge & training to better answer your questions.) But you have to be serious about wanting to learn. If you're approaching this discussion with an attitude of contention & debate it'll be a waste of time. If you don't believe in God and take no interest in the Church, that's fine. But if you feel the need to offer rebuttal every time someone says something nice about the Bible you might want to examine your own attitude. Cheers, Jon

.....At this point I started to panic, check my altimeter and I was at 2,500. For a last attempt, I reached behind my back... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This was fine. Nothing wrong with a main pull above 2000' even if it was the third try. Isn't this what those high pull altitudes are all about? You had altitude awareness and you were focused on the task at hand. I thought this was going to be another AAD story but you pulled and were under reserve at 1000'. Nothing wrong with this. Cheers, Jon S

...In my religion, declaring a large group of wonderful people as being members of a "morally wrong" group is morally wrong.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the Bible as inspired by God. Therefore, if the Bible says homosexuality is morally wrong, that means that God says it is, not some caveman. This is why the Bible is recognized as something of an authority on the subject. If you do not acknowledge Biblical authority, it is understood that you will not be persuaded by any argument that begins with "The Bible says..." My comments, and similar ones offered by others, are intended to facilitate communication so you will better understand this viewpoint regardless of whether you agree. The same Bible that declares queer sex wrong also emplores us to treat people with respect, etc. regardless of whether they personally partake in queer sex. Those who do can recipirocate this respect by keeping their personal lives to themselves and not continually looking for ways to bring it to our attention. Keep my nose out of your bedroom. Many "wonderful people" also engage in immoral straight sex (I did once,) use foul language, gossip, drink too much, use illegal drugs, mistreat people on occasion (usually not on purpose,) say stupid things in anger, cheat on the job, even shoplift or engage in other petty crime. We can treat these people with compassion & respect, while still holding to the standard that their behavior was wrong. The alternative is to be hard-ass about it or ditch the moral standard altogether and tell them what they're doing is okay and that anyone who disagrees is a bigot. Y'know I've never understood this hostility to "fundamentalism" The word simply means basic or essential. Would you fly with a pilot who did not respect the fundamentals of powered flight? Cheers, Jon

...So, if the OT is no longer relevant why oh why is it still preached or even included in the Bible?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It is still relevant. Who said it wasn't? Cheers, Jon

Funny how an omniscient and omnipresent god can change his mind like that... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It wasn't about "changing His mind." There's much you misunderstand. Cheers, Jon

Also, the bible says that we should execute women who have sex before marriage, and murder children that don't obey their parents... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This is funny. You're responding to my very brief post, yet you totally missed what I said. Jesus changed the way we deal with sin. He did not say the sin was okay. For whatever reason, God did allow harsh punishment in the OT for some of the things you mentioned, but that is no longer applicable. In the meantime, adultery and disrespect toward parents remains wrong. Offering a suggestion or sharing information, even from the Bible, does not constitute "imposing" anything. The only religion being imposed in America today is secular humanism. This is being done in the form of numerous laws being passed to address problems caused by people who do not respect and/or have never been taught to value basic standards of morality taught in the Bible. We were a much freeer nation back in the days when these standards were universally respected and taught as part of school curricula. Name one nation, governed by atheistic philosopy, which has provided more freedom than America traditionally has offered. It didn't work for Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. but perhaps there really has been a free atheist-controlled society and I just don't know about it. Cheers, Jon

QuoteIt also has a lot to do with how you treat the Cop, treat him with respect, (Don't kiss his ass, that makes them think you are hiding something) Just be polite, and Generally speaking, they will return the curtesy!... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Well said. I have been treated poorly by cops in situations where I hadn't done anything wrong, and I was offended. Still, these were minor incidents that did not result in my arrest. While I do not live a lifestyle that could result in serious legal problems, I have been stopped a few times while driving during the past 34 years. Minor violations. I could have received tickets but mostly didn't. I was honest & polite, it might have been a factor. And I reciprocated their courtesy by taking seriously the warning and not blowing them off. The test came in 1997 when I was stopped by a radar bike cop while doing 45mph in a 40 zone. I was perplexed until he said he caught me doing 63. Stunned, I said he was mistaken , as I didn't drive like that as a teenager and I don't drive like that now. Once he began filling out the ticket I stopped explaining why he was wrong and focused on procedural matters. What could I expect, what did he think my chances would be, etc. He said it might depend on what the judge thinks of me calling hm a liar. I said "No. If you say your radar showed 63 I take you at your word. But I didn't make it do that." (Later I realized what probably happened: About a mile back I turned right onto this road as a large Blazer-type vehicle was waiting to turn left onto the same road. As I rounded the bend into the cop radar the Blazer-dude caught up and tripped the radar thingy. Did I mention I was driving a Camaro? The radar most likely picked up the Blazer profile. Meanwhile the cop saw "63," looked up, and the first car he saw was a Camaro...) The nice proseutor lady offered a real nice deal: $50 and no license demerits. I said I appreciated the offer, but that I was not guilty and would like to speak with the judge. They gave me another invitation, rather than address the matter that day. Next time I was waiting and thought I saw the cop in the hallway off to the side, looking into the room and (seeming) to notice me. He appeared to have the same build, etc., but without the bike helmet I couldn't be sure it was him. I was prepared to show the judge my 8x10 color glossies of the crime scene, with the circles & arrows and paragraphs on the back of each one explaining why I didn't deserve to be convicted of this accusation. Then, they called me: "Airman 1270" (or whatever court pseudonym they use...) I approached the nice lady judge with my large envelope of evidence, only to be stopped by something like "The witness against you is not here and you're free to go..." I almost said "Wait - he's here, I saw him a minute ago..." but instead I just said thanks and left. Of course, if I had had several speeding convictions in the previous dozen years they might not have been so nice about it. I suspect this was their way of dealing with a situation where an innocent guy had been falsely accused, without the burden of placing an aquittal on the prosecutor's record. Cheers, Jon

QuoteThat is Old Testament law. New Testament teaches forgiveness from sin.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ True. Except for some dietary restrictions, God does not declare something wrong in the OT, then later says it's okay in the NT. Jesus changed the way we are to deal with sin, but He didn't say the sin was okay. Homosexuality is morally wrong, as is a bunch of other stuff. God doesn't hate gays any more than He hates people who drink too much, or gossip, or sell stolen property, or commit adultery, or downsize too aggressively, etc. We all stand on even ground at the foot of the cross. Cheers, Jon S.

Quote>Aw, c'mon Bill! What happens to me if I just refuse to send my kids to school? Nothing at all, if you homeschool them... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Fine. Refund my money to me. You know, the money that was taken at gunpoint to support a school system that teaches your unproven secular religious fantasy as fact. Why should I HAVE to homeschool them to ensure they get a good education? Even if evolution was a proven fact, why do you want the schools wasting several weeks' worth of classroom time on the subject? You are twisiting yourself into a pretzel in order to defend censorship & one-sided religiious indoctrination while claiming to be open-minded & tolerant. Cheers, Jon

Quote***If you are legally detained (you're the driver in a traffic stop for instance), then that officer has the legal right to identify you. Name, birthday and address... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This has always been understood. However, there have been some frightening examples of cops who think they have the right to check ID's of all passengers, or stop a guy & ask questions & demand ID because he's out walking along the side of the road late at night. During my radio days I regularly read police reports and began noticing this stuff. I have concluded that the reason a rural police department needs a K-9 unit is to deal with window tint violations and out of state drivers who fail to signal a lane change. Or could it be that they know these random searches are illegal and are trying to cover them up? They'd be much more honest by writing "...I saw the guy and just wanted to check him out and see if I could find anything..." rather than go through the motions of claiming the whole thing began with a traffic violation. What the hell type of training are these guys receiving that allows them to believe they have the right to treat people this way? More to the point, why would they want to? ...I was pulled over for taking my seatbelt off while pulling into a gas station... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Talk about petty! One more reason seat belt laws are plain wrong. Why would a cop even want to stop a guy for this? When these laws started popping up in the 1980's we were assurred that cops would not use this law as a reason to stop people, etc. Suddenly I had lights in my mirror one perplexed morning in 1985. Turns out I was wearing my lap belt, but not the visible shoulder harness because it didn't work properly. Our once-free nation is becoming a totalitarian police state. This is what happens when liberals win elections. Details coming soon on a Speaker's Corner thread near you. Cheers, Jon S.

Learn the law before complaining about it... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Aw, c'mon Bill! What happens to me if I just refuse to send my kids to school? If your answer is "nothing" then your previous comment makes sense, but it exposes some ignorance. If I refuse to send my kids to school (or make other "approved" arrangements) police arrive to escort me before a judge, where I risk fines and/or jail. If I resist I can be shot. This doesn't bother you. All I'm asking is that students be exposed not only to both sides of the debate, but that they are told that there ARE two sides to the story. This is the truth, yet you oppose this. We're talking about something that is unproven and unproveable and which does not meet basic criteria for serious scientific analysis. So what business does this issue have anywhere near a "science" class? Freedom. Liberty. Choice. Cheers, Jon

>Why must I be forced at gunpoint to submit my children to your >irrational secular humanist religious fantasy? You're not, as several people have pointed out. Put them in school anywhere you like. Heck, teach them at home. If you are too lazy/cheap to do that, then you'll get whatever the public schools give them. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This has to be a joke, as I can't believe you don't get this. The law forces me to submit my children to the system, and money is taken from me by force to pay for the secular humanist religious indoctrination that occurs within this system. If I could simply not send my kids there, and spend my money as I see fit (such as on the private school education you suggest) we would have no quarrel here. However, this is not the case. If I want a good education for my kids, I must pay twice and/or do it myself. It appears you're "down" with that. (Shuffles away with a pompous swagger, pants around his knees...) What's wrong with my suggested compromise?: Allow the schools to teach whatever they want, and repeal compulsory attendance laws. How would this affect your family in a negative manner? Freedom. Liberty. Choice. Cheers, Jon

.....We have seen species evolve... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ By the way, yes, you're right. Nobody denies that there has been evolution within species. The dispute has to do with this evangelistic dogma, presented as fact, that some amoeba turned into a fish which flippered itself upon the shore, etc. etc.... There is no evidence that one species turned into another. Darwinism suggests, without proof, that this has occurred. Even if Darwinian evolution WAS a proven scientific fact, why would this justify several weeks worth of classroom time on the subject? We don't spend nearly as much time reminding students that the sun rises in the east, or that water flows downhill. After all these are facts, right? Evolution does not meet the requirements for serious scientific consideration. It is neither predictable, observable, nor repeatable. It is unproven and unproveable. Why would this topic belong anywhere near a "science" class? I recall a bunch of well-meaning folks in Europe some 70-odd years ago, telling us it was perfectly okay to murder people who did not meet certain arbitrary standards of intelligence, social skills, appearance, etc. This message was given false credibility by people wearing white coats who stood in front of blackboards while they waxed on in their erudite language about how their opinion was justified by "science" and, therefore, there was no room for debate. My question remains unanswered: Why must I be forced at gunpoint to submit my children to your irrational secular humanist religious fantasy? Cheers, Jon

You already have a choice. Feel free to send your children to a private school or take them to Ken Ham's Creation Museum any time you feel like. Science class is for teaching science, not ridiculous religious dogma pretending to be science. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Evolution IS ridiculous religious dogma. It is a theory, not a proven scientific fact. The fact that so many people believe it IS a proven fact illustrates my point. You have been brainwashed. I am open-minded: I want both sides presented so students can be better equipped to make up their own minds. You are narrow-minded & intolerant: You want one side taught (falsly) as fact. And I don't have a choice. Attendance is mandatory and my money is being confiscated at gunpoint to support a system that rams a one-sided discussion of the issue down my kids' throats. Please tell me you're just being funny, that you're really not too dense to understand this. Cheers, Jon

...the... and... ...Now, if you want only YOUR... theory taught, and want to exclude everyone else's, there's going to be a problem... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ WHICH HAS BEEN ... Sorry. Don't mean to shout. Which has been my point all along. I say the schools should present a fair, balanced discussion of the issue, then move on to more important things. You defend the current practice of spending several weeks (or more) of classroom time on a one-sided presentation of the matter. I suggest a compromise: Allow the schools to teach whatever they want, and give parents the right to decide whether they want to get their kids involved. Freedom. Liberty. Choice. Cheers, Jon

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Actually, the facts are voluminous. I was simply employing brevity. The matter has been studied to death, and some of these facts have been expressed here in past conversations. One must expose oneself to news sources which actually report this stuff in order to be informed. Operations like CNN give low priority to such stories. Meanwhile, I spent years listening to, and working at, a radio station which carried programs in which these things were discussed and facts & details were provided. Here's one example: The origin-of-life discussion. If the goal is education, then students would be exposed to both sides of the debate. However, based on previous conversations I know that you oppose this. As a secular humanist/atheist, you think the schools should support your religious viewpoint at the expense of any other. You guys love to throw around the word "science" to justify your bigotry, as in "Teach one side in science class, but teach the other side in a religion class." Two problems with this: If there really WAS a "religion" class you'd complain bitterly about it, especially if attendance was mandatory. Secondly, if there were such a class it would be the perfect place to teach evolution because it is, after all, nothing more than an unproven, unproveable secular humanist religious belief. However, you (and the Democrats) get what you want. By exposing students to a one-sided discussion of the topic, and by dragging it out for weeks at a time, you get them to conclude that there is no serious alternative view. They graduate and are cut loose into the world with this belief lodged in the back of their minds. Never mind that you can't explain how life began. The point is that people who believe there is no God are far more likely to fall for hysterical ideas & claims (such as the belief that humans can actually change the climate by driving certain cars, using certain light bulbs, etc.) These are people who are more likely to vote for the very Democrats who push this nonsense. Ever wonder why one of the biggest political action groups participating in Democrat politics are teacher's unions? Ever think about why Democrats were the driving force behind the creation of the federal Department of Education under J. Carter? Do you actually believe it had nothing to do with placing our kids' education under the control of the left for the purpose of securing a voter base made up of people who have never been taught critical thinking skills and who have been brainwashed into believing that there is no God and that people who think there is are not quite as "intelligent" as everyone else? Just one example. Cheers, Jon

This all makes sense once you begin to understand that the purpose of public education is to turn students into little secular socialists who respond to emotion rather than logic, and who grow up to provide knee-jerk votes for Democrats. They're already being taught to accept warrantless searches and constant police supervision as a normal part of life in America. This is a perfectly logical next step. The solution to the public education scandal is to cut these people off at the root and allow the system to wither on the vine: Repeal compulsory attendance laws, then sit back and watch the schools fix themselves. If you disagree, please name one thing that is going on in the schools that is so important that parents should risk being shot by police if they choose not to participate. Cheers, Jon S.

...and I should have waited longer to stabilise before deploying... Not if you had lost altitude awareness. In your first post you said "not sure of my height". If that meant you'd lost altitude awareness, then pull is the good thing... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Yes! We all have bad days, this was yours. Once in trouble, you did the right thing. Learn more, but know that you did something other jumpers would wish they had done if they were still alive: you pulled. Cheers, Jon S.

... A 1980s Racer with a 5 cell reserve and a StratoCloud main for $700 in the classifieds may be described as "good beginner gear", but it really is NOT... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Aw, gee, Why not? I jumped this stuff as a student. No, really, it had a round reserve... Point well taken though. We've reached the point where perfectly good gear, once considered suitable for advanced students who had some round experience, should only be jumped by us old veterans. Cheers, Jon S.

...Will it be more 'dangerous' to only jump about 4 jumps a month?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ NO! Why does this attitude keep gaining momentum? There is NOTHING wrong with a beginner making a few jumps a month. You'll learn this stuff a little at a time, just as the rest of us did. Sure, there will always be people who can make 10 jumps in a weekend and do it again next week, but who says they get to set the standards? You may have trouble finding a DZ that will allow you to pursue this at your own pace without a bunch of paranoid hand-wringing about currency, but you can do it. Cheers, Jon S.