Merry Christmas

"Jim" wrote in message
ups.com...


I have just reviewed, looked over the 200 plus posts in this topic, and
I am now convinced that I am wasting my time in subscribing to it. No
one seems know what the group is about, it's purpose, and very little,
if anything, about medium format photography. All I see is people
running their mouth via the internet. Who cares and whose business is
it, if you believe, or do not believe in a god. All that is your own
business, and people who have to speak, often going on and on, are just
those who's beliefs need support and are seeking it by going public.
Unless pointedly asked, a true believer (in whatever) would not need to
state such information in public. At a meeting of people of the same
belief, he could and would, freely state his belief for all to hear!

Jim Simmons

But there are people who refuse to respect the line drawn in the
sand....They have to step over that line whenever they think they can get
away with it. The problem is, they believe that their God smiles at those
who "convert" the heathenistic masses into believing in him, and they think
they can do that by being obnoxious. This is similar to believing that you
can get into heaven by strapping a bunch of dynamite to yourself, and
blowing yourself up, as long as you take a few infidels (heathins) with you,
except it isn't quite as obnoxious as that.....But the general principal is
the same.....If you don't believe, then, By God, I'm going to make you
believe, even if I have to kill you (or otherwise infringe on your space) to
do it! I claim that that line in the sand should be ten feet wide, and we
should all take care to remain on our side of it at all times. Then we
wouldn't be at each other's throats all the time..........

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news
Jim wrote:
Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
William Graham wrote:
"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:36:01 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:39:05 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

In a country that has a fundamental separation of Church and
state, it is a bit irksome (at least) when Bush is on the record
as saying: "I appreciate that question because I, in the state
of Texas,
had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative
eroding the important bridge between church and state." GWB

Bush makes a lot of references to God in his speeches.

The US Supreme Court has historically been very conservative in
its interpretation of the establishment clause. In great part
to avoid the influence of any religion on government which was a
plaguing problem in Europe for the last 1000 years.

BTW: I have no "anti-religious" bias. OTOH, I don't have a
moment of patience for those who assert creationism as being
truth. What does George believe? Evolution or creationism?

Cheers,
Alan.

The First Amendment reads, in part:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
This does not say anythign about the President, or his
religiosity. It specifically prohibits *Congress* from making
certain laws.

But it was Congress who changed the pledge of allegiance to the
flag to include the words, "under God" instead of "indivisible",
back in the 50's......

And what penalties did Congress set up to punish any and all who
don't utter the magic words?
None.
What means were set up to ensure that the Pledge is said by all
ands sundry at any given interval?
None.
So, where's the idea that any God is somehow the God of the
Government?

For the first 10 years or so of my life, I had to file into an
auditorium at school every morning, and mumble whatever my
classmates were mumbling......I don't appreciate my children having
to file into one and mumble whatever their classmates have to
mumble....The least I can do is to break that cycle.How far will I
go? - Well, I'm not going to strap a bunch of dynamite to my chest
and blow myself up over it, but I sure as hell am going to cast my
vote over it whenever I get the chance. Today, there are a bunch of
religious nuts that are willing to blow themselves up over things
like this....Perhaps you guys should take a cue from that and back
off a little......

For as practical a guy as you otherwise seem, William, I'm frankly
surprised you'd burn so many calories...and so many votes...over
these "mumblings."

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

I have just reviewed, looked over the 200 plus posts in this topic,
and I am now convinced that I am wasting my time in subscribing to
it. No one seems know what the group is about, it's purpose, and
very little, if anything, about medium format photography. All I see
is people running their mouth via the internet. Who cares and whose
business is it, if you believe, or do not believe in a god. All that
is your own business, and people who have to speak, often going on
and on, are just those who's beliefs need support and are seeking it
by going public. Unless pointedly asked, a true believer (in
whatever) would not need to state such information in public. At a
meeting of people of the same belief, he could and would, freely
state his belief for all to hear!

Jim Simmons

It's very simple, Jim. Get yourself a decent, free newsreader, and simply
skip this particular thread. This is merely a naturaly side-track
conversation between photographers who frequent these groups...which
started with "Merry Christmas." This is "public," yes, but I am very
familiar with William Graham, Alan Browne, Bill Funk, and the others
talking here. They've been participating photographers here for years.
We, in a sense, "know" each other, and are some level above public
strangers. And by the way...I think your theory is bunk--about looking
for validation here. I can tell you that I rarely get that here if
anything religious comes up. -But why do YOU care one way or the other.
Clearly you do or you wouldn't read 200 posts...only to gripe and
moan...followed by YOUR OWN two cents on religion! Even YOU felt
compelled to enter in with your own take. Isn't it funny how we're ALL
hypocrites at one time or another?

Again... Get a news-reader, and all will be right with your NG world...

Yeah.....Basically, the problem is we get bored with just photography,
photography all the time, and occasionally have to talk about something
else.....That having been said, one could do a lot worse than photograph
churches and cathedrals....Some of the best architecture ever created was
done in the name of God.....Just as is some of the greatest music ever
written....As a musician, I would be seriously depriving myself should I
refuse to play anything written in the name of religion.......

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...


There are a LOT of atheists like that. I've dealt personally with
many of
them, and quite a number of them have had such a HUGE chip on their
shoulder that they go about it with milirasistic
tunnel-vision...much more so than even some of the most religious
among us. It becomes their overwhelming, single-minded "guide" in
some cases. It is VERY close to a religious zealot, and sometimes
worse.

Yes....Some people get very annoyed at being discriminated against
just for exhibiting common sense.....After all, It was the middle
50's when congress changed the pledge of allegiance to read, "under
God" instead of, "indivisible". Where did that come from? - If that
wasn't simply a slap in the face to the atheists, then what, exactly
was it?

I'm wondering if it might have been a "slap" to Communist USSR... ?

One might argue that if the religious zealots started it,
then they have no one but themselves to blame when we fight back, do
they? So now many of us are petitioning the government to remove all
references to god from all of our public places....Well, what do you
guys expect? In my case, it isn't worth the trouble.....For the first
10 years of my life, I thought it meant you couldn't see our
country.....:^) So why, exactly would I care? but obviously, there
are some who do. And, when I am asked to go to the polls and
vote....Which side do you think I am going to vote for?

I understand both sides, actually, William. You're not a kook. There are
kooks on both the atheist side and the religious side. I don't like your
pronouncement that all believers are somehow fools, or illogical, etc. I
certainly understand how faith seems to fly in the face of logic. Believe
me...I DO understand that at a personal level. I just think there's more
going on than can be measured/quantified etc. I tend to view these things
through a logical eye too, and it's a problem for me that I struggle with.
I don't know that I'll ever feel I've "figured it out." But please don't
assume that because of an area of faith in one's life, that the faithful
are universally irrational or illogical. There are some blind, "faithful"
idiots. I've run into them, and I'd like to smack them in the head just
as much as you would. But there are others who are not only logical, but
exceedingly wise and down-to-Earth in their faith. I hope you'll meet
them someday, because you may have to revise a few of your sweeping
generalizations.

I've met a lot of them.....People like Albert Einstein, and other great
thinkers who were religious.....But I have noticed that the more intelligent
they are, the more their religion reduces itself to some basic concept, such
as, "I believe that some supreme entity created this universe, but I don't
believe in the Christian myth." And I have no argument with this....There is
no way I can prove that the universe didn't start somewhere, and it could
have started with some supreme being as it's initiator. The only reason I am
an atheist is because, in general, I don't happen to believe that, but I
can't prove that it isn't so. Most of the time, when I make reference to
"religious nuts" I am either talking tongue in cheek, or referring to real
religious nuts....People who would kill me in order to convert me.......

William Graham wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
Ron Hunter wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Frank ess wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Cynicor wrote:
Mark² wrote:
God doesn't need money, and when Bill Gates comes to the
"Pearly Gates" his money won't matter.
And God will be looking at the enormous good that Gates has
done for third-world countries through his charities.
Meanwhile you have
people like Larry Ellison giving money to try and counteract
Gates's charities. One's getting in, one isn't.
Actually, according to the Bible, God won't be looking at his
deeds
at all. He'll be looking at his relationship with God (or
lack of).
Deeds are great, but apparently not the end-all, be-all in
God's view. I should add, of course, that deeds often
reflect the heart and the relationship...but even a complete
ass can perform "good deeds." Heck, even T.O. of the Dallas
Cowboys has shown up at charity events...
While good works, alone, won't do the job, they don't hurt. It is
possible to be a good person, and to be rich. I recall
M. Dell funding insurance for uninsured children in central
Texas while the legislature debated their program to death. That
has to go on the plus side of the ledger.
Sure. It's good.
He also made sure that you heard all about it, and thatyou gave
him "credit" for it.
One of my pet peeves is when companies write a HUGE,
4-foot-long check to some charity, and then throw themselves a
big party to show how charitable they are.

Yes...it's good and nice for the receiver...but it also becomes
self-serving at some point.
Doesn't everything?
No.
Not everything. There really is such a thing as self sacrifice
or selfless giving.


It is rather hard for someone in the Gates/Dell financial bracket
to make self-sacrificial charitable donations. Or, they could
give TIME rather than money. It is hard for us to assess their
motives for these donations.

I don't claim they had poor or selfish motives, since that's not
really up to me...but when you claim credit for these sort of
gifts, it's as though you've just cheapened the act of giving into
a sideshow for yourself. Giving can become means of attracting favor
or approval from the givee...or even onlookers, rather than the
simple willingness to make a personal sacrifice to give...that
isn't "paid" in return by receiving kudos on the 6 o'clock news. The
over-all effect of receiving gifts may be great and good to the
receiver...but in terms of the giver--to me they've basically given
THEMSELVES the "gift" of kudos. Brownie points... Keep
giving...even if it's 4 foot long checks, and the like. -Just
don't expect God to fall all over himself because you gave in that
way. There's an interesting story in the Bible about giving. Jesus
describes a rich man who makes a huge procession of his act of
"giving" to the temple--a HUGE quantity of cash, etc....but then
following this, he notices an impoverished widow who secretly drops
what little she had (a single "mite" in this case) into the box
when nobody was looking. Jesus sees her, and uses it to explain
how God views "giving." He notes that the rich man gave
painlessly from his wealth, while the widow gave only a tiny
fraction...but a gift that was truly a sacrifice for her. She received
no fanfare, and no
outward appreciation for it, and yet Jesus describes hers as the
greater gift, and the only gift of significance to God. He goes on
to say that the attention the rich guy got from the crowds was all
the "reward" he'd receive...but said the widow's reward would be in
heaven. It's an interesting little glimpse of how God, according
to Jesus,
sees the act of giving.

Sometimes, the process of public giving motivates others to give
likewise.

Reminds me of "Miracle on 34th Street" where Macy and Gimble start
arguing over who gets to pay for the x-ray machine Kris Kringle want
to buy for his friend...

Yes....I see these things in a different perspective. If you can
generate a lot of money in a short period of time by doing whatever
it is you are good at, (Bill Gates, for example) then there is
nothing wrong with giving some of that money to a charitable cause,
rather than your time, (which is much more valuable to you and
everyone else if you do whatever it is that you are good at.) The
idea that it doesn't mean anything if you don't "suffer" in some way
is ludicrous to me.

I'm not talking about suffering.
I'm merely talking about the attitude of giving. As I stated
clearly...there are benefits to the receiver--no matter WHAT the giver's
attitude is. I'm only talknig about the difference between those who give
for personal gain vs. those who give with the simple motivation of
generosity, etc.

I am sure the recipients of the charity neither
know nor care how the money was made

I've already agreed with that and stated it plainly.

, and I doubt whether God would
care, either.

You don't believe in God, William, so your off the cuff opinion of his
nature is rather suspect.


He would only care if making money was some kind of
"sin", and as a republican, I don't believe it is a sin to make
money. Only liberal democrats believe that everyone who is rich got
that way by climbing up the backs of the poor and the downtrodden. We
enlightened Republicans know that there are lots of people who made
their money the old fashioned way, by working hard for it, and saving
and investing it, and there is no sin in giving some of it to
charity.........

Who said anything about sin? It's no sin to give with a 4-foot check...or
however else you want to give. I only mention that according to the
Bible...in terms of the giver...God cares about the attitude of the giver
more than the gift itself.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Alan Browne wrote:
William Graham wrote:

Yes. Hitler, (for one) believed in astrology.....He looked to the
stars for justification of his decisions.....

So did Ronald Reagan. A lot.


Actually, it was Nancy Reagan. Ronnie believed in Nancy; Nancy believed
in astrology.

Mark² wrote:


There are a LOT of atheists like that. I've dealt personally with many of
them, and quite a number of them have had such a HUGE chip on their shoulder

It comes from being constantly badgered by religious zealots.

Mark² wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
AnOvercomer 02 wrote:

Only one man gave his life for our sins.
Only one man has arose from the dead.
Jesus the Christ!

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8


Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye
of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Matthew 19:24

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than
for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Mark 10:25

Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Luke 18:25

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love
to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be
seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in
full. Matthew 6:5

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they
think they will be heard because of their many words.
Matthew 6:7

The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you
that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even
like this tax collector.
Luke 18:11

And what conclusion are you drawning from these???



Tis better to walk the walk *BEFORE* you talk the talk.

Mark² wrote:

The difficulty comes because the "proof" of God doesn't come in a
scientifically measurable form.

If it's not scientifically measurable, it's not "proof".

Mark² wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Mark² wrote:

He has said "God speaks to me", but that is quite different. The
two sound similar when not on a microphone, and I note that the
"supposed quote" was merely something someone "overheard".
Whether "to" or "through" these are extraordinary statements from a
head of state of a secular nation whose constitution clearly wishes
government and religion remain quite separate.

(As did Jesus Christ, by the way).

Tell that to the founding fathers.
They were clearly nuts...if it's nuts to believe you are led by God.


Some did, some did not ...

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits
of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the
being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. -Thomas
Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had
written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote
"Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less
pernicious than Demonism?")

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of
ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will
always avail themselves for their own purposes. -Thomas Jefferson to
Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the
supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed
with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.
But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in
these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding,
and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most
venerated reformer of human errors. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John
Adams, April 11, 1823

God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy
is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.
-- John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth
of the Incarnation of Christ,

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to prosper." -Benjamin
Franklin

Mark² wrote:


Who said anything about sin? It's no sin to give with a 4-foot check...or
however else you want to give. I only mention that according to the
Bible...in terms of the giver...God cares about the attitude of the giver
more than the gift itself.


Not according to Jesus:

Luke 21
1As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the
temple treasury. 2He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper
coins. 3"I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in
more than all the others. 4All these people gave their gifts out of
their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

Luke 20
45While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples,
46"Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in
flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the
most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at
banquets. 47They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy
prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."