arndt@lymph.dec.com (09/23/86)
Way to go Mike! What a gutsy guy. Rich Rosen is history! Single handedly you performed a frontal lobodomy on yourself on the nets - without anesthesia (though some wags would insist you had taken care of that a long time ago). So for your reply to my "A Fig for 'what's his name", you get the "Dunce of the Nets Award!" (Er . . . Mike, I'm starting to get mail asking how much I'm paying you to act the Net Toad and if I'm writing your scripts. We've got to stop meeting like this.) But leave us review the award-winning selection. (I've advised everyone I know to sell their Cybermation stock!) You start off with a real grabber, "Ken Arndt launches into yet another frenzy of fuzzy thinking!" - and then precede to drool all over yourself. (Of course I get mail from confused persons like the guy from Berkeley - who will remain nameless and he is NOT a homosexual - who accuse me of 'attacking' you and Tim Sevener, for example in my recent piece "I Agree!") You will recall I researched and explained the account of Jesus 'cursing' the fig tree. Jesus finding no fruit on the tree even though Mark in his account says it was not time for figs, 'curses' the tree and the next day it is dead. The explanation being he was looking for the edible 'prefig' fruit which when there was none meant there would also be no figs, etc. You reply, "The tree might have been knocked down, ripped up, or girdled for all the text says." Wow! I said you and Tim walk around the nets with your mental flys open. You really drop the ole kimono here guy. This is the classic argument from silence - which falls of its own weight. Worthless! Worse than worthless - silly. Reminds me of being on guard duty and approached and questioned by a young officer and asked what I would do if attacked by a tank, to which the regulation reply is, "Why I'd shoot it with my arty piece sir." "And where would you get the artillery piece (they always go along with it - especially the young ones)? "The same place you got your tank sir!" What you are really saying here, besides "look at how silly I can be in public" is that Mark and Matthew are either lying about what happened or couldn't tell the difference between a tree fallen down and one standing up, etc. I think your clear anti-miracle bias (unreasonable in a 20th C. science educated man) is showing and showing that it has softened your brain. Both accounts clearly state that the tree died because Jesus 'cursed' it. They were surprised when they found it dead the next day - because it wasn't or hadn't been any of the things you suggest above, or sat on by an elephant or eaten by a giant fig tree fly. Not only that but I would refer you to common 'rules of evidence' when considering eyewitness accounts of events. As are used in courts of law. You have no doubt heard the phrase, "Beyond a reasonable doubt." Allow me to quote from Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Law, Frederick D. Linn & Co., 1881. (That's right, 1881! I own a copy - photocopy - ha ha) Greenleaf was a famous lawyer and law school teacher who 'wrote the book' on rules of evidence and was challenged by a student to consider the testimony of the four Gospels about the life of Jesus from the standpoint of his own rules. He, a Jew, became a Christian and wrote this book.) But back to 'a reasonable doubt'. Greenleaf says, "It should be observed that the subject of inquiry is a matter of fact, and not of abstract mathematical truth. The latter alone is susceptible of that high degree of proof, usually termed demonstration, which excludes the possibility of error, and which therefore may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction. But the proof of matters of fact rests upon moral evidence alone; . . . The error of the sceptic consists in . . . demanding demonstrative evidence concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT THEIR TRUTH." (italics mine) pp23-24. Your comments about 'fallen trees' etc are unreasonable! What about the 'evidence' given by Mark and Matthew? Greenleaf goes on to say (about their entire books), "In the absense of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector. This rule serves to show the injustice with which the writers of the Gospels have ever been treated by infidels (that's you Mike); an injustice silently acquiesced in even by Christians; in requiring the Christian affirmatively, and by positive evidence, ALIUNDE, to extablish the credibility of his witnesses above all others, before their testimony is entitled to be considered (how many times Mike have we heard the 'infidel' rabble cry, "Who ELSE says so?"), and on permitting the testimony of a single profane writer, alone and uncorroborated, to outweigh that of any single Christian." pp25-26. He goes on to say how 'contradictions' so often cited are merely the expected differences of testimony one hears when two persons describe their memory of the same events. And he cites several famous - to his day - examples. Also, the Bible is not ONE witness, but the record of MANY!! How empty the statement, "But who else?". What they are really saying is, "Produce someone who doesn't believe it happened to say it did." Since there are not eye witness accounts surviving that say it didn't happen - yea I know, the naughty Christians burned them all with their texts! But back to your award winning posting. You say I explained " . . . how JC (nice touch) could have seen that there were no figs developing on that tree, - even though if there were any they wouldn't be ready." Mike, Mike, I said (as a recent poster corrected you) that to tell a fig tree wouldn't bear fruit all you had to see was that it didn't bear the 'pre-fruit' which was what they were looking to eat in the first place. Just like a farmer today would say if we don't get blooms we don't get no apples! Or do you correct the logic of modern farmers too? As for your statement that when I said cursing the death of an infant was similar to that of Jesus cursing the tree, it wan't because such cursing doesn't cause an infant to die - well I just don't know WHAT to make of that!!! WHO WOULD CURSE THE DEATH OF AN INFANT TO CAUSE IT TO DIE??? Your exact words after I said, "The way you or I might curse the death of an infant" were, "Not at all. Cursing the death of an infant doesn't cause death." It should have been clear to all except the most extreme anti-Christian net bigot that the similarity lay in the rejection of the fruitlessness of the tree and the dying of the infant! Not in the RESULT of the cursing. In fact I made a point that our cursing HAS no effect other than to show our lack of character. Sounds like you are skipping injections again, Mike. Again, my point of course, which your rabid bias will not let you see, was that Jesus cursed the tree because it should not have been barren the way you or I would curse the death of an infant BECAUSE it should not have died! When faced with death Jesus DID do something about it! He overruled it! Egad, do we have to go on?? (there's more) Someone else spoke to your point of conjecture that if the tree was barren one year it might bear the next which demonstrates a "wanton destruction" of the tree you say - which by the way misses the point that it didn't bear THEN when it was needed and so was not as it 'should' have been and was worthy of 'cursing'. Your sign off line from Gilbert and Sullivan shows that you have a book of quotes under your desk but not that you are literate. The account we are looking at in Matthew and Mark is not "brimming with such poetical emotion" but rather falls, as I have shown above, under normal 'rules of evidence' of the type we deal with every day in our courts. Your quote in the sign off line speaks FOR the rules of evidence in this case! Look Mike, I don't really enjoy slappin' a little kid around like this any more. But you (and your nitwit HASA buddies) keep MOCKING my Christian beliefs and acting as if you really have something rational to say. I don't mind if you are doing it just for fun over a beer at the end of a day. Be glad to sit down with you and swap barbs and cream pies. And I feel I could actually learn things from you guys (and gals) as most of you (you included too Mike) are not really stupid people - just bigots! Well, this has gotten rather long and I have to get back to the getting the kids into bed - Mom has given up! They listen to me. Hope you don't mind me shooting back at you Mike. I do enjoy reading your postings. And by Satan, I'll look you up and phone you one of these days! Be warned! Maybe we can have that beer. Keep chargin' Ken Arndt
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/24/86)
Ken, you are an indian giver. Just when I thought I'd won something, I read your note and saw that you'd snatched back the dunce award for yourself. In article <5483@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com.UUCP writes: > ...But leave us review the award-winning selection. (I've advised everyone I > know to sell their Cybermation stock!) That's OK: Cybermation is privately owned. However, we've started developing new products here on non-Dec equipment. :-) > ... You reply, "The tree might have been knocked down, ripped up, or girdled > for all the text says." Wow! I said you and Tim walk around the nets with > your mental flys open. You really drop the ole kimono here guy. > > This is the classic argument from silence - which falls of its own weight... > > What you are really saying here, besides "look at how silly I can be in public" > is that Mark and Matthew are either lying about what happened or couldn't tell > the difference between a tree fallen down and one standing up, etc. I think > your clear anti-miracle bias (unreasonable in a 20th C. science educated man) > is showing and showing that it has softened your brain. Both accounts clearly > state that the tree died because Jesus 'cursed' it. They were surprised when > they found it dead the next day - because it wasn't or hadn't been any of the > things you suggest above, or sat on by an elephant or eaten by a giant fig > tree fly. Who's walking around with his mental fly open? Ken is making the classic argument of gullibility: believe the surface of anything you see or read. By this classic argument, if a Voodoo priest cursed someone, and that person was dead the next day, Ken would believe in Voodoo. And if you suggested to Ken that the victim was poisoned or killed in some other non-supernatural manner, Ken would attempt (in his lovable, brain-damaged way) to ridicule you. > Not only that but I would refer you to common 'rules of evidence' when > considering eyewitness accounts of events. As are used in courts of law. > You have no doubt heard the phrase, "Beyond a reasonable doubt." Allow me > to quote from Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by > the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Law, Frederick D. Linn & Co., > 1881. (That's right, 1881! I own a copy - photocopy - ha ha) Greenleaf > was a famous lawyer and law school teacher who 'wrote the book' on rules of > evidence and was challenged by a student to consider the testimony of the > four Gospels about the life of Jesus from the standpoint of his own rules. > He, a Jew, became a Christian and wrote this book.) Golly, Ken! You had to go all the way back to 1881 to find a crank who was goofy enough to make an argument you agree with? > But back to 'a reasonable doubt'. Greenleaf says, "It should be observed that > the subject of inquiry is a matter of fact, and not of abstract mathematical > truth. The latter alone is susceptible of that high degree of proof, usually > termed demonstration, which excludes the possibility of error, and which > therefore may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical > deduction. But the proof of matters of fact rests upon moral evidence alone. > The error of the sceptic consists in . . . demanding demonstrative evidence > concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence > alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, THAT THERE IS NO > REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT THEIR TRUTH." (italics mine) pp23-24. Well then I ask you, why do you have unreasonable doubts about agnosticism and atheism? You see his fallacy now? Who declares that there is no reasonable doubt? He is merely assuming his conclusion. > What about the 'evidence' given by Mark and Matthew? Greenleaf goes on to > say (about their entire books), "In the absense of circumstances which > generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the > contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the > objector. This rule serves to show the injustice with which the writers of > the Gospels have ever been treated by infidels (that's you Mike); an injustice > silently acquiesced in even by Christians; in requiring the Christian > affirmatively, and by positive evidence, ALIUNDE, to extablish the credibility > of his witnesses above all others, before their testimony is entitled to be > considered (how many times Mike have we heard the 'infidel' rabble cry, "Who > ELSE says so?"), and on permitting the testimony of a single profane writer, > alone and uncorroborated, to outweigh that of any single Christian." pp25-26. Yes, in courts witnesses are presumed credible until shown otherwise UPON CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE OPPOSITE SIDE. Testimony is not admitted unless the witness can be cross-examined. > He goes on to say how 'contradictions' so often cited are merely the > expected differences of testimony one hears when two persons describe their > memory of the same events. And he cites several famous examples. > Also, the Bible is not ONE witness, but the record of MANY!! How empty the > statement, "But who else?". The Bible consists of the carefully selected testimony of a few. There is a purposely fostered illusion of unaminity. > What they are really saying is, "Produce someone > who doesn't believe it happened to say it did." Since there are not eye > witness accounts surviving that say it didn't happen - yea I know, the naughty > Christians burned them all with their texts! As has been frequently mentioned, a small number of contradictory texts has survived. Read "The Other Bible" for examples. > As for your statement that when I said cursing the death of an infant was > similar to that of Jesus cursing the tree, it wan't because such cursing > doesn't cause an infant to die - well I just don't know WHAT to make of > that!!! Poor Ken's gone off the deep end again: somebody else must have made that statement. > Egad, do we have to go on?? (there's more) Someone else spoke to your point > of conjecture that if the tree was barren one year it might bear the next > which demonstrates a "wanton destruction" of the tree you say - which by > the way misses the point that it didn't bear THEN when it was needed > and so was not as it 'should' have been and was worthy of 'cursing'. As I pointed out to the other person, any prophet who could perform raisings of the dead and loaves-and-fishes miracles could just as easily have miraculously caused the tree to bear fruit in profusion. But instead, he supposedly destroyed it, a wonton act. > Hope you don't mind me shooting back at you Mike. I do enjoy reading your > postings. And by Satan, I'll look you up and phone you one of these days! > Be warned! Maybe we can have that beer. Feel free, Ken. I need to learn to drink beer. -- Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a case brimming with such poetical emotion?" Chancellor: "Distinctly." From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
thain@magic.UUCP (09/25/86)
I don't really know why I do this. Maybe because Ken might learn something but I highly doubt it. Anyway, here goes. In article <5483@decwrl.DEC.COM>, arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: <Usless drivel concerning attitudes better left alone for one who professes to follow the teachings of Jesus> > You will recall I researched and explained the account of Jesus 'cursing' the > fig tree. But.....your materials and the authenticity of those materials are questionable in the eyes of those who are demanding the proof. Just because you have faith in them doesn't mean that the events can lead to those specific conclusions. ( I point out that this is a problem with using Biblical text to support your position Ken, not everyone has the same faith in it's complete infalability.) < Information about figs and more insults deleted, a story about tanks and arty pieces equally worthless, as tanks and figs have nothing even remotely in common.> > What you are really saying here, besides "look at how silly I can be in > public" is that Mark and Matthew are either lying about what happened or > couldn't tell the difference between a tree fallen down and one standing up, > etc. I think your clear anti-miracle bias (unreasonable in a 20th C. science > educated man) is showing and showing that it has softened your brain. Both > accounts clearly state that the tree died because Jesus 'cursed' it. They > were surprised when they found it dead the next day - because it wasn't or > hadn't been any of the things you suggest above, or sat on by an elephant or > eaten by a giant fig tree fly. The tree could have been diseased, sickly without outward signs. There isn't enough evidence in either account to claim for a Godly miracle that couldn't be explained away by rootrot, or some other malady. The fact that the tree wasn't producing pre-fruit(?) makes the whole scenerio questionable. ( Now, if we decide that this really was a miracle, then the Egyptian Pharoahs were the direct manifestations of Amon-Ra here on earth. Otherwise Ken, you've set up a double standard where the Christian God is the only miracle producing entity. Quite a claim in the face of the evidence we have from the Egyptians.) ( Oh but I forgot, we are talking about the *ONE TRUE RELIGION* again. Sorry!) > Not only that but I would refer you to common 'rules of evidence' when > considering eyewitness accounts of events. As are used in courts of law. > You have no doubt heard the phrase, "Beyond a reasonable doubt." Allow me > to quote from Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by > the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Law, Frederick D. Linn & Co., > 1881. (That's right, 1881! I own a copy - photocopy - ha ha) Greenleaf > was a famous lawyer and law school teacher who 'wrote the book' on rules of > evidence and was challenged by a student to consider the testimony of the > four Gospels about the life of Jesus from the standpoint of his own rules. > He, a Jew, became a Christian and wrote this book.) ( The fact that the man changed his religion then wrote the book of course gives it more weight. Here we go again!) > > But back to 'a reasonable doubt'. Greenleaf says, "It should be observed > that the subject of inquiry is a matter of fact, and not of abstract > mathematical truth. The latter alone is susceptible of that high degree of > proof, usually termed demonstration, which excludes the possibility of error, > and which therefore may reasonably be required in support of every > mathematical deduction. The same can be said of the Pharoahs. > But the proof of matters of fact rests upon moral evidence alone; . . . The > error of the sceptic consists in . . . demanding demonstrative evidence > concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence > alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, THAT THERE IS NO > REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT THEIR TRUTH." (italics mine) pp23-24. Yet other religions could make the same claims with equal validity. The writings of the Koran, the ancient egyptian beliefs, the Shaman in Indian mythology, all can be viewed with the same critical eye and one would come to the same conclusions. > What about the 'evidence' given by Mark and Matthew? Greenleaf goes on to > say (about their entire books), "In the absense of circumstances which > generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the > contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the > objector. This rule serves to show the injustice with which the writers of > the Gospels have ever been treated by infidels (that's you Mike); an > injustice silently acquiesced in even by Christians; in requiring the > Christian affirmatively, and by positive evidence, ALIUNDE, to extablish the > credibility of his witnesses above all others, before their testimony is > entitled to be considered (how many times Mike have we heard the 'infidel' > rabble cry, "Who ELSE says so?"), and on permitting the testimony of a single > profane writer, alone and uncorroborated, to outweigh that of any single > Christian." pp25-26. But that's just the point Ken. Greenleaf states that there must be an absence of circumstances which generate suspicion. The Bible isn't devoid of suspicion, it is a part of the mystery of God. Simple repeating that because it is the words of the ONE TRUE RELIGION gives it no more or less crediblity than any other religious text. Simply because a large portion of the population worships under it's banner doesn't mean that it is clearly defined, with no reason to question it's contents. Let's look at the evidence. The world during the times of Jesus had very few people who could read and write, most of the accounts were passed on by the retelling of oral stories. Written accounts fall under the editorial pen of the then dominate church which viewed everything with a critical eye. Since the accounts we have today are many times handed down, there is no reason, ( except by faith), that one should read these accounts as the true words of the one true God. These accounts at best can only be considered hearsay, the position of Christians that of cult status and the opinions of Greenleaf to be heavily weighed by his newly aquired religious fervor. You seem to be willing to take the oposition that GOD would have never let His words become distorted over the passage of years, that God inspired Greenleaf to "tell it the way it REALLY is!" This is nothing more than faith in the system. Yet you want us to believe in that system so you say "look at the evidence in support", which is just a mirrored image of your own faith in the system which in *my* book is nothing more than another case of Christianity screaming special dispensation for the Christian religion on the grounds that: " Since it's the Only True Religion, how could it be wrong?" > He goes on to say how 'contradictions' so often cited are merely the > expected differences of testimony one hears when two persons describe their > memory of the same events. And he cites several famous - to his day - > examples. > Also, the Bible is not ONE witness, but the record of MANY!! How empty the > statement, "But who else?". What they are really saying is, "Produce someone > who doesn't believe it happened to say it did." Since there are not eye > witness accounts surviving that say it didn't happen - yea I know, the > naughty Christians burned them all with their texts! The fact that texts were burned, the fact that the leaders of the Christian Church were not above "putting in the fix" to assure the survival of their religion, ( by suppressing text, editing text, burning heretics and others who disagreeded ith their "version" of the truth), these can all be overlooked as "just a simple mistake", eh? Because no records survive, of course there can't be any other explanation, other than the one that has all the evidence pointing in it's favor. < Farming lesson deleted > < Cursing lesson deleted > > When faced with death Jesus DID do something about it! He overruled it! So did the Egyptian Pharoahs, does that make them any less God Incarnates than Jesus? ( But of course, the Egyptians are the heavies in the Old Test., so they don't count, right?) > Look Mike, I don't really enjoy slappin' a little kid around like this any > more. But you (and your nitwit HASA buddies) keep MOCKING my Christian > beliefs and acting as if you really have something rational to say. I don't > mind if you are doing it just for fun over a beer at the end of a day. Be > glad to sit down with you and swap barbs and cream pies. And I feel I could > actually learn things from you guys (and gals) as most of you (you included > too Mike) are not really stupid people - just bigots! A good example of Christian charity and love here Ken, you really help your position with this one. Nobody's mocking anything here, some of us don't believe that the Bible has all the answers, that the conception of God is not Christian, that perhaps we have a right to decide about our religious beliefs DESPITE the occasional Christian who assumes otherwise. We chose our path because it works for us, just the way Christianity does for you. But that doesn't mean there arn't gray areas that we're missing. Because we're not Christian doesn't give you the right to assume a bigoted attitude, it simply means we disagree with the points you've raised. We cannot change your beliefs but neither should we be subject to your prejudicial viewpoints on how to conduct our relationships with God, the Easter Bunny or whatever! I disagree with you because you assume that your way to eternal salvation is the only way. Your religion applauds the browbeating of others with mythology and speculation passed off as fact. It cries "foul", "bigot", "heretic!" every time someone questions it's basic fabric. It pleads for special considerations, asks for special understanding from those around it, then slaps and bullies others like a neighborhood tough. No wonder some people can't seem to understand it. It conterdicts itself, word and deed mix like oil and water. Even here, you whine about being picked on, being abused. We're MOCKING you because we refuse to lay down and stop thinking, stop questioning about God, the universe and how we fit into it all. If this is being a bigot, count me solidly in. Also, you've been giving the ranks of HASA a bad time lately, but I don't hear any of them crying foul. Maybe if you stopped prostalitizing long enough to listen some of what you hear might educate you in spite of your preconditioned beliefs. Most of us don't impose our individual beliefs on others because we understand what a personal religion is all about, independent of having it spoon fed to us by others. This pisses off all the Christians who are too narrow minded to see beyond their petty religious mythology of one mind, one church, one body. It irks me Ken, that someone like you has decided to convert me at the expense of annoying me and giving yourself an ulcer. I didn't ask for your help, neither did some of these other people but there you are, swigining your rightous sword for God, in God's name and looking like a horse's ass while you do so. ( I ask the fellow netters to forgive the above outburst. I'll now retreat to my corner like a good fellow. Where's Rick Frey when you need him?" ;-) One last suggestion Ken, if the continued forum here disturbs you so much that you feel like everyone's picking on you and your religious beliefs because they have questions they want to ask that can't be answered but from inside yourself, I suggest mod.religion.christian. It's a haven for people who wish to help strengthen their faith in Christianity and the Bible, not to test their faith to the outside world's foiables. I remain, Glenn Proud Founder of HASA An Independent Thinking Organization, dedicated to Truth! Justice! ....... ( well Truth and Justice! Oh also Free Will!) Division "S" Commander thain@src.dec.com
nazgul@apollo.uucp (Kee Hinckley) (09/26/86)
In article <5483@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com.UUCP writes: ... > What about the 'evidence' given by Mark and Matthew? Greenleaf goes on to > say (about their entire books), "In the absense of circumstances which generate > suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is ^^^^^^^ ... > Also, the Bible is not ONE witness, but the record of MANY!! How empty the ^^^^^^ > statement, "But who else?". What they are really saying is, "Produce someone > who doesn't believe it happened to say it did." Since there are not eye > witness accounts surviving that say it didn't happen - yea I know, the naughty > Christians burned them all with their texts! ... > Ken Arndt Having a witness present is VERY different than having a RECORD of witnesses present. Look how much even tape recordings are challenged in court. It seems highly unlikely that a 2000 year old record of what someone supposedly said (and a record that is known to have major errors and modifications, someone recently mentioned the "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live in thy village" --> "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" example) would stand a chance in court. As for the question of counter witnesses, take the Jewish records. Do they record a resurrection? Or how about the Bible itself (sorry I don't remember the passage, I only bought one in self-defense a few days ago and it's at home) when it mentions that the soldiers who guarded the tomb were given money and told that they could say they had been bribed to leave. It even says that this story was widely spread. Asking for counter evidence is a bit silly. Those who did not see evidence of the resurrection A) had no reason to say otherwise (not anticipating the importance of such a statement in the future) and B) like most other people of the era probably could not write (did the Apostles actually write their stories, or were they handed down over time?) and C) even if they could have, the chances of such documents surviving 2000 years of religious persecution seems rather slim. Enough. I am not a member of HASA, and I have no problem with faith. I just have trouble dealing with attempts to apply faulty logic as a support of faith. It's a foot in the door. Sooner or later someone will get the idea that the story taught by the bible is not only supportable in court, but it SHOULD be supported in court. The next thing you know they'll be arguing that it should be taught in schools next to the science courses. And that's not funny. Religion is like pornography. It's your right, just don't force it on anyone. -kee -- ...{mit-eddie,yale,uw-beaver,decvax!wanginst}!apollo!nazgul Apollo Computer, Chelmsford MA. (617) 256-6600 x7587 or 499B Boston Rd, Groton MA. (617) 448-2863 I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.