It all started with a link posted on the board on 6/17/99 by Shayla Shayla of ATL, a regular on the Joy of Villainy forum. While the same post was made to other forums, for some unknown reason the Mu forum seemed to generate the widest variety of crackpot threads. They are being reproduced here for the edification of future generations who might wonder just how weird the forum can get sometimes.

Conspicuously absent from the debate was Mu himself, who was believed to have just purchased Aliens vs. Predator and didn’t have time for such claptrap. However, here are a few of the highlights, internally anchored for her pleasure…

Shayla Shayla Debates Evolution’s Validity With a Student of Archaeology
Max Longstreet Blows the Lid Off the Book of Revelations/Zoroastrianism Connection
Max Longstreet and Gnosticism/Cabalism
Using Lab Techniques to Fool Carbon Dating and Creationists
The Obligatory Roberta Williams Connection
Max Longstreet Drops da Bomb
Musashi Speaks Out
Shadwolf makes a serious post??
Shayla Shayla’s Bibliography
Shayla Shayla and the One True Faith
Shayla Shayla Claims to be Done
Musashi Grumpily Replies

 


 

Just something to make you think
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/17/99 12:37:15 PM

Post a reply about what you think if you want.

The link went to this page, basically about a girl who ansered "Yes" when the Columbine killers asked her "Do you believe in God?"  Then they shot her.  Some people seemed to believe this was somehow a religiously uplifting event, rather than the last frightened words of a girl who was about to get creamed.  Soon the floodgates were opened…

It makes me think…
by Constrictor posted 6/17/99 2:26:39 PM

…she’d have lived longer if she said ‘no’. BTW, what is a good Christian like yourself doing playing Ultima Online anyhow? The game allows you to summon demons, murder others, and promotes herding for god’s sake! Repent! Shouldn’t you be donating your life savings to Rev. Falwell right about now?

re: To answer your question…
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/17/99 2:57:50 PM

…what is a good Christian like yourself doing playing Ultima Online anyhow?

Because I know what is game and what is real life. Just because we are Christians don’t mean that we don’t play games to. It’s just I don’t let it get in the way of my faith. And the reason for my post was not to start a flame war but to see what everyones views are on what she did.

If more people were Christians, would this happen again? Yes sad to say but true. I don’t like the world that we live in but I live here just the same.
 

Yay, we believe in God.
by Clove posted 6/17/99 1:36:30 PM

Now shut the fuck up already.

Evolution in action
by Shadwolf posted 6/17/99 12:44:55 PM

Here’s a revolutionary concept – how about a belief system in which people belive in themselves and take responsibility for their own actions. We are once again made aware that faith does not stop bullets, but it does inspire rednecks.
 

Did she know that "yes" was the wrong answer?
by Dethbot posted 6/17/99 1:30:20 PM

I mean, maybe she thought that saying yes would save her ass!  I can not see how any conclusions about her motivations can be drawn from her actions.  She may have said yes because she has been programmed since infancy to answer that way.  Maybe she thought that saying yes would cause that merciful, loving and all powerful being to defend his loyal worshipper and strike down her assailant.

We will never know what her motivation was but there are two FACTS that we do know.

1. She is DEAD!

2. The god she worships did not succeed in saving her from becoming DEAD! (we can not know if he tried to save her…only that he did not do so successfully).

And so: The god she worshipped (<===past tense) was/is either omnipotent and willing to allow her to be ruthlessly murdered or else….not all he’s cracked up to be in regards to sheer butt whooping potential.  Neither possibilty inspires any particular admiration in me.

Anyone have God’s email addy or icq number?  Let’s SPAM his ass!

re: The "wrong" answer to some.
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/17/99 1:58:21 PM

She was a pagan that went Christain. Most Christains are Christains not because what thier parents belief but because they choose to be. And what does she have to worry about. Death of the soul? No. She died for what she knows was true.

Is God uncaring? No. Can we question what God does? Hey what are we gods? No, don’t question the Almighty. He is God, not us.

re: Evolution is dead.
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/17/99 1:25:09 PM

Do some reseach, evolution does not pull any weight any more. And now days most people can’t take responsibility. Faith never was made to stop bullets. Faith is the believe in what you can not see. When you have faith that is all you need.
 

??????????????????????????????????????????????????
by Shadwolf posted 6/17/99 2:33:39 PM

Evolution does not pull any weight anymore? This must have happened while I was sleeping.
 

re: Yup, sorry to destroy that for you.
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/17/99 2:41:58 PM

If you look at the chart of Evolution (you know, the one with all the monkeys and a man) and follow all the research on every one of those "pre-man" types you will see. To many missing links. On of those "pre-men" was later found to be just the bones of a old man with a bone disorder. Just do some research on it. You will find it.

I see the light!
by Shadwolf posted 6/17/99 3:37:49 PM

WOW! You opened my eyes! The skeleton that you refer to was the deformed, arthritic skeleton of a pre human biped which had been mistaken for a semi-quadrapedal ape-like creature. It was not a human (Some of us have looked it up…). The nature of the theory suggests that most of the fossils we predict should be "missing," but we have found far more fossils than would seem logical. When you do ‘look it up’ (try looking it up for yourself, not taking the word of the local child mol.. er, priest) you will find that the ‘missing link’ debate ended fifty years ago. Having had this discussion a great many times with scientists and theologians alike, I am well versed in all of the viable arguements on both sides. It is appalling to note that you are not. Why don’t you walk down to your library and get alibrary card. Then you could read up on the subject and get a fucking clue.

Yet another reason religious people suck.
by Constrictor posted 6/17/99 2:52:01 PM

Faith alone proves God exists, six billion people of all races and types are the direct descendants of a dust man and his wife made out of his rib, and if you have sex before marriage your soul will burn in hell for all eternity.

On the other hand, a mountain of scientific evidence built up over hundreds of years can be disproven by not finding enough 50,000 year old bones. Okay.

re: Yet another reason religious people suck.
by Max Longstreet posted 6/17/99 4:45:25 PM

Pretentious rant for the day:

It’s not religious people who suck; it’s people who use religion as an excuse to do no fucking thinking for themselves whatsoever. It’s a Reggie White, who says that homosexuals are evil, the bible says so, who sucks. It’s some Yahoos in the Middle East who interpret the Koran to mean that if you kill some Jews you go to Paradise, who suck. It’s anyone who think their religion, nationality, or whatever blindly held beliefs they have give them the right to go around killing or suppressing people who disagree with them, who sucks.  

Amen (NT)
by Constrictor posted 6/17/99 4:52:38 PM

We can’t get to heaven by killing Jews?
by GrupenFuhrer White posted 6/17/99 5:18:33 PM

Ach! Zumvun has schreened de pikchur of der Mu on meinen Brown shirt unt it iz schayink der Hovard Collins isch hurting mir badly! Gotterdamerung!

re: nope.
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/17/99 3:04:53 PM

I will try to stay out of the Bible but all sin will make you go to hell. But if you look at the Bible, old and new, you would see that it all fits.

And Carbon Dating has been used to test on a shell fish. The test said that the fish was 30,000 years old. The shell fish was raised in a lab.

The Crusades
by Clove posted 6/17/99 5:03:32 PM

300 years of plundering, rape and murder. All in the name of God.

re: The Crusades
by Mohammed posted 6/17/99 5:21:39 PM

Can you believe those dumbass Xians tried to 5 pool me? You should have seen them hit my wall of zealots.
 

Creationism: how to make faith=ignorance
by Max Longstreet posted 6/17/99 4:36:13 PM

A problem I see here is that you confuse faith with ignorance. You state that all sinners will go to hell. Faith I suppose; after all you read it in a book that is the word of god. Isn’t it interesting that this word of god doesn’t really get into hell much until end of the bible, when this "word of god" takes on a radically different tone from that of, for instance, the gospels.

Do a little study and you’ll realize it was the influence of the Zoroastrians that give Revelations and other later books their apocalyptic character. Zoroastrianism, a religion that preceded Christianity by thousands of years speaks of life as an ongoing battle between light and dark, good and evil, between god and the evil Satan-like figure (Ahura Mazda, if memory serves) that ends in a fiery apocalypse. The day of judgment is not an original concept. While we’re on the subject, I always find it hilarious how Zoroastrians wandered into the birth of Christ in the form of the three wise men using their mystic astrology to locate the savior and then shower him in heathen gifts. Generally speaking, studying historical documents like the Bible and the Koran shows many close connections between all of the major middle-eastern religions, as well as a variety of "apocryphal" religious accounts deleted by the religious authorities of the day, all of which indicate that these books we’re written by many men who were influenced by each other, rather than by god directly.

Faith is a very powerful concept that can empower and transform lives. It is NOT, however, what most people take it to be, a blind and literal reading of the bible. I notice that you take the parts of the bible about the age of the earth and the existence of hell as literal truth. Do you take the Levitican rants against shellfish and tattoos to be the literal word of god as well? Perhaps you only have "faith" in those parts of the bible that fit in with your preconceived beliefs? I have known Christians who by their faith were powerful enlightened people. However, they never took their faith as a license to preach ignorance and idiocy, or felt a need to convince others of the literal truth of the bible’s words.

re: Christianity is from the Jewish faith….
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/18/99 1:14:29 PM

Which is one of the oldest religions left in the world. Christians still worship the God of Abraham. We just believe that Christ is the Son of Man. The Jewish religion does not.

Get a Clue. Just a little bit of a clue please.
by Max Longstreet posted 6/18/99 3:30:33 PM

I encourage you to read beyond what your bible teacher tells you. Neither Christianity or Judaism was ever monolithic.  Since you seem to be a woman of limited intellect, I’ll explain what that means. Neither was ever one, unified religion. Do you know what Cabalism is? It’s a Jewish form of mysticism. How about Gnosticism? Do you know what that is? Shortly after the time of Christ, there were hundreds of Christian sects running around preaching all kinds of different things. The "official", Roman Catholic version won out, meaning they killed off everyone who had a different take on Christ and Christianity.  What got in the bible had a lot to do with this struggle. You would also be naiive to believe (well, actually I already know you are naiive) that Christianity sprang unadulterated from the loins of Judaism. All of the religions of the middle east borrowed ideas from each other.

Which brings me back to Zorastrianism, and the ultimate irony about the bible. Zorastrianism, the apocalyptic, astrology-practicing official religion of the Persian empire (which is still practiced today by a group of rich Indian merchants known as Parsees), originally sprang from the old religions of Sumer and ancient Babylon. Babylon is the site of blasphemy and evil in the old testament, and yet it returns triumphant in Christianity, first in the form of astrologer wise men, and then in the last books of the new testament. These books contain all that heaven and hell stuff which you believe in so fervently, Shayla Shayla, and all of it was ripped off hook, line and sinker from the Zoroastrians.

Read a little history and get back to me on this dear.

Ahriman take you, heathen! (NT)
by Shadwolf posted 6/17/99 5:06:55 PM

re: Ahriman take you, heathen!
by Max Longstreet posted 6/17/99 9:46:38 PM

If anyone cares, I seem to remember now that Ahriman is the devil figure in Zoroastrianism. Ahura Mazda is the good deity, I believe.

Carbon dating
by Shadwolf posted 6/17/99 3:43:51 PM

I could explain this to you, but it would entail a basic understanding of biochemistry which I am certain you do not posess.  Under artificial conditions, it is possible to make and object appear any age. Since this does not occur naturally it is not considered to invalidate the accuracy of Carbon Dating. The 30,000 year mark is only a problem because it happened 24,000 years before God created the universe. I’m just wondering where all of the pre 4,000 BC people lived until God created the Earth….

Rambling (long)
by Chimaera posted 6/22/99 11:43:47 AM

Curious where you got the "24,000 years before God created the universe" bit. I don’t have a Bible in front of me, but I don’t recall a timeline in Genesis. Anyone who can give the exact date of creation (whichever theory you believe in) is, in the end, only guessing–unless of course he was there…

In this day and age, any scientific evidence can be used to support any claim (4 out of 5 doctors recommend) A mountain of evidence proved O.J. Simpson was a murderer and yet he was found innocent… Furthermore, a mountain of scientific evidence does not deny the existence of God. It only goes to suggest that those who believe in complete randomness are a little off the mark. I submit that scientific evidence shows the complexity of a universe that could only have been "created"…

If you read Genesis, you CAN see support for the millions of years pre-dating mankind. The mistake is often made in these pointless debates that it can only be one way or the other. I do not see as much conflict between the evolution and creation as others would have us believe. Next time I have a Bible at hand, I shall post this.

As for religious people sucking… Ever notice that it is always the minority of any group that bitches and moans? How many times do you hear someone praising something? This game sucks, that person sucks… Same goes for religion. You have a few nutcases spouting off their mouths and causing trouble (pick any tele-evangelist, Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson, the Religious Right.). Remember, these are people who make their living off of spreading hatred and victimization. And then there are the people who have decided that religion, personal culpability/responsibility, morality (and any of your UO virtues :) ) are all bad words (sorry, but pick most vocal liberal politicians in D.C.).

So, I rambled around and didn’t use a lot of long words. I have neither the time or desire to delve into anthropology and theology.  In short, keep your beliefs to yourself and don’t try to shove ‘em down someone else’s throat. Stop being a victim and take responsibility for your actions. Play more computer games and stop taking yourself so seriously.

re: Carbon dating
by Dark Dark Dark Dark Dark posted 6/17/99 4:01:18 PM

Karben dateing duznt werk cuz Jezez Krist Haz SUPRE POWERS an he kan chaynge Thingz So it jus Seemz like it werks. GoD R3WLZ!!

Hell r0x
by Constrictor posted 6/17/99 3:36:40 PM

It’s where all the cool people will be.


After the thread made it into the mainstream, some other corollary threads appeared.

Cochran to defend God
by Shadwolf posted 6/17/99 3:07:01 PM

Johnny Cochran announced today that he will be defending the big man himself in the Cassie Bernall case. If you recall, Cassie was the young lady who affirmed her faith in God who then failed to protect her from the bullets which followed this religion claim (it’s funny how that always seems to happen). Experts believe that Cochran will use the "Mysterious Ways" defense. Similar to the infamous "Chewabaca" defense, this involves confusing the jury by stating that God’s motives were beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. He will then go on a long filibuster, spewing forth miscellaneous and irrelevant quotes from the Bible until the jury concedes his point to make him shut up. Experts point out that this defense has worked for years and has yet to fail. God’s legal fees will be paid by a defense fund set up to milk all of the inhabitants of the Southern half of the United States. GOD NEEDS YOUR MONEY! Its not cheap being all powerful…. Sources say that Roberta Williams may also have been involved.

Hasn’t Roberta Williams caused enough suffering? (NT)
by Clove posted 6/17/99 4:53:34 PM


 

Mourne hates God, and dares that Shalyax2 chick to reply.
by Mourne posted 6/17/99 4:19:49 PM

 

Of course, I hate the idea of God. Religion serves only to to prove how incompitent the human race is, for it is merely an excuse which seeks to justify our destructive, wasteful existance. Religion is for those who cannot accept that the earth’s creation may have been a freak occurance, or cannot comprehend the physics involved therein. For them, it is easier to fall in line and let some one else think for them. By this, I am refering to the Bible’s inept attempts at brain washing – You will love your fellow man, and shall not sin against god, unless you can make a fucked up, cheesy excuse like "Manifest Destiny." *Coughs NATIVE AMERICANS cough cough* It is your duty to civilize the savages, although they often times possess more logic, and are far less destructive to their surounding environment. Fuck ‘em… might makes right, and the winners write history books.

The only reason Christianity survived past the occult stages is because it was centralized in western civilization, which you will notice has thrived since before Jesus was born. My point is that the religion flourished because it preaches "family values" while stabbing its enemies in the back with religious fury. It flourished because there are enough people there to believe in it. Christians a re a weed in my book, an unthinking, unphilosophical disease.

I thinik it is hilarious that any one would be willing to die for an idea so hypocritical and fake. When that girl in Columbine said "Yes," she was talking to dust. Air. Nothing. And now I assume she knows only blackness, for that is all that waits beyond this.

–Mourne

 

I respectfully disagree
by Max Longstreet posted 6/17/99 10:09:21 PM

The precepts of Christianity are some of the most powerful ideas on the planet, the only problem being that very few people actually follow them. The Christian notion of forgiveness is perhaps the most loving philosophy known to humanity. It is usually misunderstood to mean that when somebody fucks you over, you then have to go back to them and say it’s okay, you didn’t really mind, and what they did wasn’t so bad–or maybe it was so bad but I’ll let you off the hook anyway. The etymology of forgiveness reveals a different definition. The "for" in forgiveness speaks of giving, BEFORE. In other words, the forgiveness is prior to anything anyone might actually do. It means that in advance, you accept and love people no matter what they might do. I think it’s actually somewhat similar to Eastern notions of acceptance, of accepting reality exactly the way that it is and the way that it isn’t.

Faith is of course another idea which is routinely misinterpreted. Like forgiveness, the root of faith is in a prior trust. It gives a sense of peace and love, but it DOES NOT mean blind obedience, resignation to a shitty life or a shitty situation, or believing that anyone who doesn’t agree with a Christian viewpoint is just wrong. FAITH IS NOT BELIEF! Faith is a sense of trust. Belief is dogma that narrows one’s viewpoints.

The problem with most religions is rarely the religion itself; the problem is that human beings practice it, and they have a nasty habit of turning their religion into whatever self-justifying belief system best promotes their own dominance and righteousness.

Shadwolf states that religion is just a crutch. I agree that this is the way that is usually practiced. It’s easy to have a crutch. True religion, however, is the hardest thing in the world, and that’s why few people are willing to follow it. It actually involves giving up one’s own petty beliefs for something more noble and worthy than oneself. Personally, I think my own ego is currently far too large for any genuine religious practice. Maybe some day. Until then Shadwolf and Mourne, you both suck donkey terds. And Mourne, learn to spell for Chrissake.

re: I respectfully disagree
by Mourne posted 6/17/99 10:47:41 PM

Asshole! I am going to get my guild on you! *cry*

I like to think my spelling abilities are in the upper-middle echelons when compared to other internet denizens. I know I am not perfect, but then no one is. For your sake I will spell check my posts before tossing them up onto the board. Happy?

In all seriousness, I do agree with alot of what you say. My earlier post was simply a little anger at the fact that most religions these days seem to be built on hypocracy, not on the honest principles which they preach.

re: Some, not all tho. Have you looked?
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/18/99 10:07:32 AM

In all seriousness, I do agree with alot of what you say. My earlier post was simply a little anger at the fact that most
religions these days seem to be built on hypocracy, not on the honest principles which they preach.

If you never look for a good thing you will never find it.

Go Mourne! Go Mourne! Go Mourne!
by Shadwolf posted 6/17/99 4:44:46 PM

I thought they wuz called Injuns. You forgot about the whole inquisition thingie. Religion absolves people of the responsibility of making their own decisions about what’s right or wrong. It is a crutch for those who don’t have the strength of character to take responsibility for themselves. The girl most likely said yes because she thought that magic incantation would somehow save her. She’d have done better to kick him in the nuts and make a grab for the gun. This usually does not work, but history sugests it provides a better probability of success than prayer.

Go Shadow! Go Shadow! Go Shadow!
by Mourne posted 6/17/99 4:53:17 PM

I couldn’t agree more. The Groin Kick maneuver was the only way to go. Silly girl. Now she’s dead, and like so many other Americans, will amount to nothing but another highly priced funeral or welfare bill.

OT: I chose Keanu because I thought he would do my Goth-ness justice by dressing up like Neo and prancing around! :)

–Mourne

re: *sigh* very well.
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/18/99 10:01:10 AM

Looks like Mu has taken a liking to this topic. Ahh well. I’m sorry that you don’t believe in God Mourne, but have you ever thought that maybe you are the one that is going with the norm. You take the easy way out not believing in god. My link I posted was not about Religion, it was about faith.

Most people say "Them Christians started to many wars! Killed people in the name of God! Say that they are better than anyone else." Well that is human of us. Sorry to disappoint you but Christians are not sinless. They just sin less.

As for the kick thing. Ask your self honestly, could you do the same? And try not to get your ego in the way of the answer.  Pride is a sin to. You let that take control and you start to look like a fool.

Shayla Shayla of ATL (Shayla x 2)

Too funny.
by Constrictor posted 6/18/99 10:17:13 AM

Shayla Shagme wrote "You take the easy way out not believing in god."

Meanwhile, on another board far, far away she spewed:

> Re: What do you have to lose?
> Shayla Shayla of ATL
> Thursday June 17, 1999
> 3:10:09 pm EDT

> If you don’t believe in God and you die:

> Well if God is there you burn in hell for not believing. If he is not there than you are dead.

> If you believe in God and you die:

> Well if there is a God than you live in heaven never to die again.

> If he is not there than you are dead.

> I like playing odds in my favor.

I am humbled by your faith Shayla. I’m going to church asap, I’m going to be a good little gambler like you are and play the odds in my favor.

re: You should you know
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/18/99 11:19:50 AM

go to church I mean. And yes the odds are in my favor. I choose god. I have nothing to lose. Its not the easy way out. My Christian life seems to have lots of ups and downs. But I still go on no mater what anyone says or does. I don’t make rude remarks but I am not perfect. The people on this board down play what I say, make fun of it, say its not true, post it as entertainment on thier page, but I still will tell you what I belief. Mu posts these messages as "The Gospel According to Shayla Shayla and a Bunch of Freaks on the Mu Forum." Well I guess that this is how I interpet the Gospel. You fault me for what I belief. I pray that you will look for more answers than some forum on a mans "Cheesy Homepage". I never took debate in school but I see what is true. Everyone can do that if they open thier eyes and see that God is more that you know and to give him the respect that he deserves. In this godless nation now people down play God. Five years ago the priest was the most trusted occupation around. Now a drug store clerk is the highest on that scale.

Everyone can down play the truth. Few can see it for what it is. Do I hate you guys for your flames? No. I would have never posted the link if I did. All I say is if you give you life to Christ you will live a more full life. Even if you die you win.  Like I said good odds but your faith can’t be on that alone.

Shayla Shayla of ATL (Shayla x 2)

p.s. thanks for the nickname. but if you want to make is so you don’t have to type much more you can just call me Sha. :)

re: You should you know
by Constrictor posted 6/18/99 12:27:00 PM

I’ve been to church before once or twice. It’s boring and stuffy, and a complete waste of time. You see Shayla, people who can think for themselves can actually be good people without the promise of an eternal paradise for obeying a set of rules.

On one hand, organized religion sucks ass. When they aren’t begging their brainwashed followers for 50 million dollars, they’re making sure everyone knows that gay people are going to hell, going door to door with pamphlets, and killing abortion doctors with sniper rifles.

Alternatively, we all know that there are still plenty of weak minded people in this day and age, and they would be lost without religion telling them what to do and how to think. For that, we’re thankful religion is there.

It could be worse Shayla, you could be a Scientologist.

re: never thought of my self….
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/18/99 1:08:31 PM

As a "brain washed follower" and if you go to a church that is stuffy and no one greets you than you are in the wrong church. About the money thing. I have seen where my money I give to the church goes. It pays for the building, Pastor’s house next to the building, food for his family, and other bills that come up. Yup and to still make ends meat he still has to take a job on the outside. 4 kids and a 2 bedroom one bathroom house. Yup that is living the good life. He does not steal the money that we offer. He puts it to work to try to get more people the message of the Bible. Now that is hard when everyone has been "brain washed" not to trust God. And I would not call me weak minded. I still reply to posts knowing full well that Mu will just put them on his record page. Give me some credit here.

 


 

Shayla X 2
by Shadwolf posted 6/17/99 5:38:55 PM

With such a limited mind I hope she’s at least a good piece of ass.

re: Shayla X 2
by Mourne posted 6/17/99 7:34:30 PM

Perhaps she can make that fabled "perfect O" :)

–Mourne, who likes his girls to have tongue piercings.


Shayla Shayla deigns us with her presence
by Max Longstreet posted 6/18/99 12:12:31 PM

I’d like to point out something to you, lest you think by my earlier discourse on forgiveness and faith in response to Mourne’s post you thought I was actually defending your positions. The reason people respond derisively to your posts is not because you are a Christian who has faith in god. It’s because you are an ignoramus who uses her faith in god as an excuse for a lot of dangerous, ill-conceived opinions. I have read a lot of creationist pap, and it sounds fairly convincing if it’s the only thing you’ve ever read on the subject of human origins, as may be the case with you. Read everything that’s out there, however, and you come to the undeniable conclusion that creationists are making a twisted, untenable argument merely to support their own religious beliefs. I recommend you read some of the works of Steven Jay Gould who has written a range of interesting and understandable books on the subject of evolution, and the scientific evidence behind it.

Furthermore, rather than being some sort of demonstration of the greater principles of Christ, you simply appear on this board to state what you believe is the absolute truth–this girl was right to die rather than say she didn’t believe in god and, more arrogantly, "if you sin you will go to hell." Maybe you ought to try saying something personal about what inspires you about someone being willing to die for their belief in Christ instead of making holier-than-thou pronouncements about god’s righteousness.

P.S. I refer you to my post 1176 on the board, "Creationism: how to make faith=ignorance," which you obviously haven’t read, to give you a little more information on the literal word of the bible which you seem to believe in.

re: telling it like it is. sorry if i offend.
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/18/99 12:56:27 PM

>It’s because you are an ignoramus who uses her faith in god as an excuse for a lot of dangerous, ill-conceived opinions.<

How is it dangerous to believe in God? Are you sure that I am voicing my ill-conceived opinions? I just say what I know from the study of the Bible. I don’t know everything, I’m human, but I know what is right.

>Furthermore, rather than being some sort of demonstration of the greater principles of Christ, you simply appear on this board to state what you believe is the absolute truth–this girl was right to die rather than say she didn’t believe in god and, more arrogantly, "if you sin you will go to hell." Maybe you ought to try saying something personal about what inspires you about someone being willing to die for their belief in Christ instead of making holier-than-thou pronouncements about god’s righteousness.<

No it was not right for her to die. It was right for her to stand up for her faith. And to die for faith is something most people would not do. I don’t know if I could do it. Do you? "holier-than-thou"? I never said that I am better than you. We are all the same in God’s eyes. I fall short of the righteousness of God. So do you. But that is why there is Christ. Through my belief in him I am saved. God sees me as righteous. Now that he sees me as righteous than I should give him respect by living righteous before the Lord. Now that is a chalange, living holy for God. And trying to live in a Ungodly world. But I know in the end I will win. And yes I just stated a fact. If you sin you will go to hell. But if you are forgiven for your sins you will live in heaven.

Shayla Shayla of ATL (Shayla x 2)

Thank god Shayla Shayla knows what is right!
by Max Longstreet posted 6/18/99 2:53:18 PM

Once again, you have misunderstood what I have said. It’s not dangerous for you to believe in God. It’s dangerous for you to act the fool. As you put it: "I just say what I know from my study of the bible." The idea that the bible is to be taken as literal truth is one propagated by churches, not by God or Jesus Christ. So tell me, do you eat shellfish? Do you view gay people as sinners because of the book of Leviticus? Let me know.

And here’s a Newsflash: Jesus Christ didn’t write the bible. You have a lot of different men writing the bible in different centuries from many different points of view. Over time, some old guys decided what should be cut out of the bible, what should be translated as what, and exactly how it should it read. Did you know that the man who wrote the final King James version of the bible was executed for heresy? Frankly, I suspect that a real Jesus Christ would be appalled by much of the bible, although he might appreciate it as an interesting work of literature.

re: Pinned by men, Words of God
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/21/99 8:09:31 AM

Yup I eat shellfish. And I worship on Sundays to. :) Do I hate gays? No. Do I hate the sin? Yes.


Aside:  From Lum’s Board…

Hummm…… now that was something I didn’t expect.
Posted By: Shayla Shayla of ATL on Friday, 18 June 1999, at 8:21 a.m. in response to: It’s all because of King’s Quest! (Musashi) .

Why would you archive the posts? So people can see what sort of people are on your board. Sorry Mu your board has more flamers than any I have seen. I posted this link because it was something that touched my heart. I guess most people can’t see that and call the girl weak for saying yes. Well if you are with God you are strong. She was with God to the very end. Scared and hiding under a desk or going to Ceazar to try and tell him your beliefs and getting your head removed for your trouble. Its hard to belief in something that you can not see and everyone says is *evil* well in my walk with Christ I have seen nothing evil in the belief. I just see good.

My first real reply
Posted By: Musashi <howard@accessgate.net> on Friday, 18 June 1999, at 11:05 a.m. in response to: Hummm…… now that was something I didn’t expect. (Shayla Shayla of ATL) .

Why would you archive the posts? So people can see what sort of people are on your board.

Actually, it was just because I found it entertaining, and a couple of the posts interesting from a theological/historical point of view.

Sorry Mu your board has more flamers than any I have seen.

No need to apologize. Keep in mind that if you dislike the flamers so much, there is no need for you to hang around on that board after you discover what sort of lowlifes are there. However, in your zeal, you may have overlooked something positive yourself.

Those "flamers" also produced some good arguments, none of which you chose to respond to. I didn’t see any responses, not even the usual pre-packaged ones, to Max’s post regarding Zoroastrianism or his more recent one concerning Steven Jay Gould, or to Shad’s posts about artificial conditions used to discredit carbon-14 dating or the arthritic Neanderthal skeleton, all of which are well-thought out replies to your arguments, which are backed up by such statements as "Do some research" and "Read up on it", without actually providing any supporting evidence. I’m afraid you have fallen back into the shelter of "I pity you because you don’t share my faith and thus suck", which is not only predictable, it is exceptionally close-minded and boring. By taking such a refuge, you refuse to test your faith through an authentic challenge, and thus can never know whether your belief system, or yourself, can hold up when really tested.

I would have sent this email, rather than spam Lum’s board with such claptrap, but I could not find an email address connected to any of the Shayla x2 messages on any of the multiple boards where this message was posted. In closing, though, I might recommend you investigate the possibility of Taoism as a belief system. It does not conflict with mainstream Christianity, no matter what Born-Agains may say about it, and it has the decided advantage of being so self-sufficient that it does not require any sort of "telling the good news", thus sparing you the flood of arguments you have started which it seems you are unprepared for.

Good luck in your continuing search for a spiritual center.

Mu


And now back to the Land of Cheese…

Do you choose God? Can I pick a blender, instead?
by Hyacinth posted 6/18/99 2:26:07 PM

Pardieu! Now that I’ve read the archive, I just gotta get in on the fun.  Do you choose God? I thought it was "faith."

I was raised a Christian & was active in my church during my youth. It was a pleasant religion, that believed in tolerance and kindness and had many adults I could look up to and respect.

Unfortunately the older I got the less the whole thing computed.  I liked many Christian ideals (charity, compassion, good works), but God/Jesus/Heaven/Hell sounded more and more like wishful thinking.

In the end, I concluded humanity has a marvelous talent for inventing and believing in things. Call it faith. I admire parts of it, but I don’t believe any of it is true.

Now I have kids and I am sorry I don’t have the comfort of religion to offer them. I wish I could drag them down to the local church, enroll them in the excellent local parochial schools, and promise them the same God that miraculously saved Batch A of tiny children while letting Batch B die horrible deaths really does have a Plan for salvation.  Unfortunately I just don’t believe it.

I can’t "Choose" God without choosing hypocracy. Presumably, the religious also are not "choosing", but are compelled by their faith. To my children I say: "Follow your heart, but don’t accept answers just because they offer you comfort or a pretty story."

Let’s hope it makes a more lasting impression on them than "Cleanup your Goddam room!"

re: Do you choose God? Can I pick a blender, instead?
by Max Longstreet posted 6/18/99 3:07:59 PM

It’s worth pointing out again that the dichotomy you speak of in Christain belief–forgiveness, love, faith and miracles on one hand; apocalypse, judgment, heaven and hell on the other–comes from the fact that they represent two parts of the bible that were written centuries apart by different people with little in common. The former represents a possiblity for humanity worth devoting one’s life to, while the latter is an entertaining story that makes a good background to a roleplaying campaign. You could probably talk to your kids about faith and forgiveness without going in for all that heaven and hell crap.

My real problem is none of it makes sense
by Hyacinth posted 6/18/99 3:36:24 PM

Not just Christianity, but all belief systems fall back on the "because we say so" excuse somewhere. Science can be guilty of this too, although at least it’s not built into the foundation.

So if a sea-shell is mis-carbondated, that proves the method employed in the carbon dating, or (as an example) the principle of carbon dating might be faulty. Somehow I don’t follow the leap to "eVolution is wrong."

However I agree with you, there is good to be salvaged from Christianity.  You don’t have to look hard at the pre-Christian Western world to see that it was *not* *nice* in a way that makes WWII look -well- ordinary. (Apologies to the Eastern pre-Christian world, which I don’t know much about.)

Just don’t spread the forgiveness line around too much until after the kids clean up their room.

re: My real problem is none of it makes sense
by Max Longstreet posted 6/18/99 3:58:51 PM

I think you put your finger on the exact problem when you refer to Christianity as a belief system, which it certainly has become. It was not originally intended to be so. The deliverance of "Good News" was supposed to be a message of joy and love. It’s turned into a message of my way or the highway.

And you’re right; science can turn into a blind belief system as well, if people don’t rigorously study the foundations upon which modern scientific ideas are based. What’s his name Campbell wrote a classic short story about it in his famous Golden Age of Sci-Fi mag called "Forgetfullness", where humans come across a seemingly primitive culture can employ what seems to be magic. This culture actually used an exceedingly advanced technology, but they had forgotten what actually made it work, so it had become a magic they believed in.


Seriously Folks…
by Shadwolf posted 6/20/99 11:02:19 AM

As you may have gathered, there are a great many things that piss me off. First on this list, however, is intentional ignorance. Shayla Shayla has been the victim of my recent ranting, not because she disagrees with me, but because she does such a poor job of it. There are some interesting arguments against evolution – she used none of them. The missing link arguement was laid to rest eons ago. Dinosaurs were large terrestrial creatures who often bathed in water or mud, sometimes just to support their enormous bulk. As a result, they were often in these places when they died and sank into the sediment to become fossils. Avian creatures such as birds and arboreal creatures like apes and monkeys usually end up laying on open ground when they die. As a result, they are almost never preserved. Additionally, they have very lightweight bonestructures which are far more susceptible to rapid decay. We should therefor be able to find very few fossils. Through careful research, we have actually found far more than might be expected. The really interesting part is that, not only is the generation of the "missing link" not likely to be well represented in the fossil record, but the specific creature that first shows the deviation in addition to the features of the original species has less than a trillion to one chance of having been preserved. This is all irrelevant, however, because there would never have existed a "missing link." We breed dogs today and have bred them into hundreds of distinct breeds. I would defy you to produce a skeleton that showed the missing link between Mastif and Chihuahua – a skeleton that was clearly half Mastif and half Chihuahua. Perhaps it would be a Chihuahua’s body with a Mastif’s head on it? No, evolution works far more slowly than that. Small changes occur in each of several succeeding generations until you achieve a result which, though dramatically different from the preceeding species, is only nominally different than it’s immediate ancestor. Nowhere along the line do you see a human with a tail or a monkey with a human head.

While ShaylaX2, as we so affectionately call her, has failed to make an intelligent argument to support her claims, Mu has given her the slightest hint. He mentions "Shad’s posts about artificial conditions used to discredit carbon-14 dating or the arthritic Neanderthal skeleton, all of which are well-thought out replies to your arguments, which are backed up by such statements as "Do some research" and "Read up on it", without actually providing any supporting evidence." Due to lack of space and the fact that no one will follow these leads, I will make only some brief attempts to address this. First, you could go to your library and ask for works by or information about Gould, the Leakeys, Sarich, Wilson or Darwin. These authors all provide good introductory material on the subject. Second, here are a few links to think about. Third, every argument has already been made – probably by someone far more qualified than yourself. If nothing else, go to your favorite search engine and type in "evolution" Find out what arguements have been made and which ones worked. Lastly, I’ve even gone to the trouble of including some links for theistic evolutionists. These are people who have the wierd idea that Evolution and the Bible are not at odds with one another.

P.S. you never confirmed or denied the perfect "O" rumour…

Neanderthals

Everything you wanted to know about Radiocarbon dating

More about dating

Theistic evolution

More theistic evolution

A couple things…
by Max Longstreet posted 6/21/99 2:49:11 PM

There are a couple of points you made that I have to take issue with. First of all, the notion that dinosaurs spent a lot of time in water to support their large bulk is one that is falling into some disrepute.  That’s a relatively trivial issue, however, and I’m not going to bore everyone with details. More importantly however, I challenge your idea that "evolution works far more slowly than that. Small changes occur in each of several succeeding generations until you achieve a result which, though dramatically different from the preceeding species, is only nominally different than it’s immediate ancestor." I hope by this statement you are not falling into the trap of gradualism. If changes occurred as gradually as you implied, then we probably would see "missing-link" type creatures show up in the fossil record. As I’m sure you know, the fossil record shows a series of staggered jumps in evolution, implying that radical evolution frequently takes place in an extremely short period of time, geologically speaking that is, and it is often precipated by sudden changes in environmental conditions. If you’ve read a lot of Gould as you implied, you know about his arguments for rapid evolution which have revolutionized the field. "Gradualism" is an unseen part of the belief system of most modern thought, the idea that things change slowly and inevitably. I’m more a believer in cataclysmic change, both in evolution and most social systems.

It’s called punctuated equilibrium
by Shadwolf posted 6/21/99 4:37:21 PM

But it still occurs over several generations and the results are never so dramatic that a Chimpanzee gives birth to a human.


Well here you go Mu…
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/21/99 2:00:58 PM

I don’t want to type all this out so I put up some links to help you guys out. And the last think I need in my mail box is spam so maybe I will get a Hotmail account.

Questions.

Darwinian Evolution: A Theory Without Scientific Foundation

Credibility of the Bible

Expand your sources
by Max Longstreet posted 6/21/99 2:59:03 PM

I would hope that your investigation of evolution is not limited to "The Phillip Johnson page." The arguments stated therein are based on a misunderstanding or intentional distortion of modern evolution theory. Johnson quotes Gould extensively to try to discredit evolution. However, he neglected to mention what Gould was trying to say; that evolution does NOT occur in gradual steps–it occurs quite rapidly. It is this notion of "gradual steps" which Gould says is dead, not evolution. Creationist arguments tend to challenge the idea of gradual steps, when in fact today’s scientists don’t believe it occurs gradually at all.

re: Expand your sources
by Shadwolf posted 6/21/99 4:34:50 PM

Actually, the idea of puctuated equalibrium is that changes occur constantly, but mutations will not become successful until there is some environmental change that selects in favor of a given mutation, at which time that mutation will become successful. At that point, you will begin to see rapid changes, but rapid here is a relative term. It still takes several generations, but we are talking in terms of a few hundred years rather than several thousand. Such things cause dissent because scientists work with theories and any given theory is abandoned when it gets disproven, but only when it is disproven. In religion, on the other hand, a given theory is accepted regardless. No proof is required and evidence to the contrary is either disregarded or dismissed by such ideas as "Science is not based in science."


About other religions….
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/21/99 2:45:21 PM

Well one more link for ya.

Answers to Questions

Shayla’s message of evil
by Max Longstreet posted 6/21/99 3:15:42 PM

The kind of "Christian" ignorance and evil preached on the link you posted here is one of the major reason your appearance on Mu’s site has generated so much hostility.

What you have posted has nothing to do with Jesus Christ; it has do with a particular church trying to push its own viewpoint and suppress others. How do you know gnosticism was false? Because we say so, is the answer of the religious "authority" you cite. Rather than focusing on the issues of forgiveness or faith or anything that could actually make a positive difference in someone’s life, this site focuses on religious dogma and making sure that everyone believes exactly what they do.

You probably don’t realize that the viewpoints expressed in the link you give have been used as an excuse to kill millions of people. If I was found out to be a gnostic, in most times and places in Christian culture I would have been burned alive. If I had publicly expressed any opinions which challenged any literal truth of the bible (which as I mentioned to you before, is merely those books that the winner of a religious struggle viewed as worthy of continuing), I would have been burned alive.

If you want to preach Christian ideals, preach tolerance and love, not adherence to dogma.


Well thats it for me…
by Shayla Shayla of ATL posted 6/21/99 3:10:07 PM

I posted a link to a story of a girl that was killed. You guys mocked her, called her weak for her faith and attacked me with insults on my beliefs.  Follow the links on my last posts. Make what you want of them. You can ignore them or post more insults or defence against them. I can not make you chose. Never said that I could. Have fun posting this on your board Mu. At least people know who I am in Atlantic now. infameous as it is. hehe.

Hell:Shayla’s Future home (NT)
by Max Longstreet posted 6/21/99 3:39:14 PM

To clear up some misconceptions…
by Mu   View Profile posted 6/21/99 4:36:05 PM

I posted a link to a story of a girl that was killed.

No, you posted a story about a girl whose death and alleged statements were being used to somehow inspire people into believing that Christ… umm… well, not quite sure what Christ’s role in it was, except maybe giving her something comforting to believe in while she was getting blown away. Or maybe it was a nervous reaction. In any case, exploiting the situation to try and further the cause of a church is something I personally find reprehensible. However, the practice is so incredibly common among fanatics of all types that it wasn’t really surprising.

You guys mocked her, called her weak for her faith and attacked me with insults on my beliefs.

If you would be so kind as to read the posts instead of becoming inflamed with righteous indignation, you might find that the substantiative "attacks" were more concerned with your baseless arguments, supported by repeated statements like "Read up on it" and "I know what’s right".  This sort of blind dogmatism is not only extremely dangerous (i.e. "My church is right," "We should kill all Jews," "I love Roberta Williams games"), it is very annoying, since as soon as this sort of "argument" starts, I just know it’s going to erupt into something stupid with no end in sight. A dogmatist can never really be truly open to conversational argument, since their beliefs are based on "faith" and shaky evidence which is picked up specifically because it seems to support the "true" position.

This is also why I haven’t been involved, since I know it’s pointless. Really, if you believe something, and can acknowledge that your basis for the belief is 100% faith, then that’s great, but don’t try and argue the point. For the truly faithful, it should be enough to sit at home and be at peace, rather than running around telling everyone about it to bolster their world-view. Your faith should be stronger than that.

Follow the links on my last posts. Make what you want of them. You can ignore them or post more insults or defence against them.

Actually I have read some of those papers before. I find them to be largely convincing-sounding manipulations of actual research, mixed with a certain amount of out-and-out "believe this stuff or else" mentality. Most of the evidence given, when the authors bother to give it, is either wholly unsubstantiated or taken so far out of context as to be unusable as a point of reference. These are very old arguments, by the way, and they have never really been convincing past a sort of vague party talk fashion. Good for picking up impressionable chicks, bad for serious debate.

By the way, did you read any of the research links that others offered?

I can not make you chose. Never said that I could.

The ability to "force one to choose", while being oxymoronic by definition, is a common tenet of evangelical practice.

Have fun posting this on your board Mu. At least people know who I am in Atlantic now. infameous as it is. hehe.

I somehow knew all this was really a ploy for recognition. For those of you who are thinking of doing something like hunting down Shayla x2 on Atlantic, you should know that the only "Shayla" match in an owo.com guild search turns up a character with 2 GM’s (Tactics and Swords, if I recall) with a third ability in, umm, Wrestling, which seems to indicate a generic 7x GM PK mage on the rise.

i r0kkeD u and Ur S70opId gh0D!
by Constrictor posted 6/21/99 4:57:55 PM


I’ll try to use small words
by Shadwolf posted 6/21/99 4:10:17 PM

Since Shayla has posted links to sites making several of the points I’ve already refuted, allow me to make one more attempt:

These are the primary arguements:

1.) The fossil records disproves the theory of evolution.

Wrong. In the instance of human development, the evolution from the Dryopithecines to Australopithecus afarensis to Australopithecus africanus to Homo Habilis to Homo erectus to Homo Neandertalensis to Homo sapiens clearly demonstrates a track in which each species shows the hallmark characteristics of the preceeding species, in addition to new genetic characteristics which indicate a move towards modern man. This is apparent to anyone who has actually examined the fossil record in detail. Just as important as the bones, however, are the fossil remains of tools, foodstuffs, copralites, and housing materials which indicate behavioral changes that are only explained by evolution. Such behavioral evolution is only explained by increasingly complex brain activity for which the bones exhibit appropriate evidence. Unfortunately, noone has yet found a skeleton with a monkey’s head on a human body, so the Creationists are not convinced. We have, however found apes which look more and more human, followed by hominids who are so humanoid (Homo erectus if you care) that they differ from modern man only from the neck up. Unfortunately, their skulls, while clearly not human and very obviously characteristic of apelike characteristics, are no actually ape heads (which is exactly in accordance with the theory, which prohibits the existance of such and ape headed human). This fits ideally with the idea that evolution occurs in steps which do not appear as spontaneous full body skeletal changes that occur fully in a single generation.

2.) There is no supporting evidence outside the fossil record for evolution.

Wrong again. The most compelling evidence currently is genetic. It involves protien antigen responses in comparative species. This is, incidentally, the method currently used to determine when species diverged because it is far more accurate than looking at bones. As I mentioned earlier, read Sarich and Wilson. The other big source of understanding evolution is comparative studies of the behavior of contemporary species. You might be interested to learn that Chimps, Gorillas and Maccaques, among others, exhibit all of the characteristics that we define as "higher thought processes."  They simply do not do them as habitually or thoroughly as we do.

3.) If evolution were correct, we should see it happening right now.

You ever wonder why there is new strain of the Flu every year? Viruses and Bacteria are interesting in that their high rate of mutation allows them to evolve faster than us by several orders of magnitude. Another example might be dogs or cats.  Rather than environment determining which animals mate, humans are making these decisions. As a result, within a few generations we can take a group of dogs, chose those that have the characteristics we want, breed them and end up with anything from a Chihuahua to an Irish wolfhound. According to the theories of the oh so knowledgable sources you have sited, there should be dog somewher with the body of a Chihuahua and the head of a Wolfhound or the front half of a bulldog and the back half of a terrier. No such animal exists, so we must conclude that God created all the different breeds just as they are. Yet we know that people bred them this way. Taking it one step further, I must conclude that Shayla has arms exactly like her father, her mother’s head, her father feet perched at the end of her mother’s legs and who knows what combination of reproductive organs. Without such an arrangement she could never, in good faith, claim to be descended from them. I’m still trying to find the child of an interracial marriage who has one black arm and one white arm… Finally, if evolution does not work, why don’t people in Africa and people in Alaska share the same genetic characteristics?


I challenge Shayla X2 to Mortal Kombat!
by Shadwolf posted 6/21/99 4:54:47 PM

If you care to discuss the potential weight that current theories pull, here are a few for you to chew on.

Proof that God exists?

Who can say?

You be the judge.

 

Leave a Reply

*

© 2009-2017 Howard Collins All Rights Reserved

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline