Re: A Southern Baptist Gay Church

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:37:19 -0500, Gary James <gnjames43@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:53:10 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 07:54:50 -0500, Gary James <gnjames43@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:26:02 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 17:42:58 -0500, Gary James <gnjames43@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I was out this morning and passed by a small Baptist church. Many
people claim Southerners aren't tolerant and open minded, but these
people obviously are. They had a recruitment drive on for
homosexuals. It said so right on the marquee. "Labor hard-- because
God wants the fruits".


They probably want to tell homosexuals they'll go to hell if
they don't become monks. Any gay person dumb enough to
join a Baptist church is pretty much beyond all hope anyway,
though, IMV.

Oh, heck, rumple ! I had hopes that this post would help to save
you. I know, I know ! You're wondering "saved for what"?


As noted in my reply to Ron, I feel I was saved! I bless
Gzwark the Magnificent every morning for having saved me
from a terrible fate.



I enjoy a church service occasionally. The music is beautiful and if
you have a good speaker, it's an enjoyable way to spend a couple of
hours. There is a Baptist church near me that use to have a pastor
who had a Phd in history. He could give a very good talk by
interweaving ancient history. He did especially well with stories
about Sodom and Gomorrah :-)


That was the only thing I liked about church as a little kid, when
I had to go to church between coming to America at age 6 and
refusing to go anymore because it was "stupid" at age 15. The
organist played really good classical music before the service
started, before I'd heard much classical music elsewhere. My
favourite was "Jesu Joy of Man's desiring" from Bach's Cantata
#147. My grandmother had a music box that played the
impossibly gorgeous "Ständchen" ("Serenade") from Schubert's
Schwanengesang ("Swan song", the name given by others
to Schubert's last song cycle), and I played that music box to
death as a 4- and 5-year old kid. It was a long time before I
knew what the tune was. In early high school, the band
teacher played two pieces of music. The first was the
"Troika" from Prokofiev's "Lieutenant Kije", which I'd never
heard before. The second was a pretty interesting, peppy
and jazzy, semi-classical piece by a New Orleans composer.
The second got more applause (except from me), and the
band teacher said "I think the Americans won." I saw him
looking at me as I sat there stunned, I guess obviously so,
not so much by the difference in applause from the kids,
but by his comment.

You heard that either Sodom or Gomorrah (They don't
know which one it is yet) has been found, right? The
ruins are scorched, and destroyed in a way characteristic
of great earthquakes. The region has huge underground
chambers of trapped flammable gas. It's not difficult to see
what must have happened.

The guy whose work best documents the fall of S & G, and all of the
other events described in the Old Testament is Immanuel Velikovsky.

" An encounter with Jupiter had caused the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah"



If we had an encounter with Jupiter close enough to do
that, we'd be part of Jupiter! If Jupiter were eight times
heavier than it is, it would be a brown dwarf star. The
earthquake and flammable gas explanation seems to fit the
evidence that was found by the archeologists better, IMV.



http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Immanuel_Velikovsky


The two arguments by Sagan against the Velikovsky at that
site that most strike me are:

The orbits of the planets could not stabilize in the time-frame
of recorded history from what Velikovsky describes.

The planets are so small and far apart that close encounters
would be unlikely in the brief time span of history, even
assuming erratic orbits.

Elliptical orbits are quite stable, but the orbits of the planets
are nearly circular. The most reasonable explanation for that
seems to me the conventional idea that the planets formed
in the orbits where they are now, after condensing from a
cloud of gas around the sun when the sun was forming.
While there was still a lot of gas, the motion in the cloud
would be pushed toward circular for the same interactive
reason that when you stir a cup of coffee, the coffee tends
to rotate circularly around the vortex. When the sun ignited,
it blew away most gas from nearby, so we have small rocky
planets that condensed mostly from the heavier elements
that were harder to blow away. Further away from the sun,
we have gaseous planets since the blowing-away pressure
was not so intense, so the larger planets would have more
time to accumulate enough gas to make their gravitation
strong enough to accumulate even more of whatever gas
was still left over.

There is evidence of historical collision, as in the
formation of the Earth's oversized moon, the prevailing
theory for which is that a Mars-sized object formed in
about the same orbit as the earth, and they
eventually collided. The fact that the earth is deficient in
lighter metals whereas the moon is mostly lighter metals
seems to support that, since the outer shells of both
objects would have been preferentially splashed
away by the collision, leaving the cores of both
objects, containing most of the heavier metals which
had sunk to the cores, to merge. The splashed-out
lighter metals would have rotated around the earth
until much of the debris coalesced to form the moon.
Also, Uranus does not rotate in the usual direction of
the solar system, but is tilted almost ninety degrees,
which may be the result of a monster collision
early in the history of the solar system.

Pluto is the odd man out. It's a rocky "planet" It
perhaps formed in the outer, sparser environment
far from the sun and came into its current orbit
by interaction with numerous other small bodies
out there, much as the asteroids between Mars
and Jupiter behave. Pluto's orbit is at an angle
to the plane of the inner eight planets, and is also
a much more eccentric orbit than that of the other
planets. One of the moons of Neptune is also
suspected to have been captured by Neptune
after being ejected into the planetary part of the
sun's environment by the same process.
Probably many of the smaller moons of Jupiter
and Saturn were captured by those planets
too, as flung-out asteroids or wanderers from
the remote solar environment beyond Neptune.

Little boats get tossed around pretty
chaotically by the ocean, but bigger boats
are more stable.

There's an entire globular cluster that seems
to have been flung out by interaction with
nearby clusters, and perhaps was once more
closely bound to the Milky Way. For a long
time it was thought to be wandering between
the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies after
being ejected from one or the other, which I
thought was still thought to be possibly the
case until I looked at the URL below, just
now:
http://schmidling.netfirms.com/ngc2419.htm

There are two moons of Saturn in nearly
identical orbits that change places when they
get close to each other. The gravitational
pull from each pulls each toward the other's
orbit, but they overshoot of course, so the
outer moon at one cycle becomes the inner
moon for the next. After that, what was the
outer moon becomes the inner moon, and
since it's closer to Saturn, it speeds up and
eventually catches up with what had been
before the inner moon but is now the outer
moon. When get close, they each get
pulled back into their former orbits, then do
the same dance all over again.
http://www.astronet.ru/db/xware/msg/1209167
(The moons don't exactly change orbits at
the half-cycle, since one moon is smaller than
the other so its variance from the mean is more
far flung, but at the next half cycle, those forces
are exactly reversed so both moons end up
in the same orbital relationship as they had
been two half-cycles before.)


IMO, Veliksovsky was the most original thinker of the 20th Century.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Justice For Pluto
    ... Ceres isn't a moon? ... Does it cause isolatable perturbations in the orbits of the other nine ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Shallow thoughts on evolution and creationism.
    ... Consider orbits, ... and an explanation can be given for why that occurs. ... We observe like we infer is the Moon and infer ... the Earth) can be seen as two different statements. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Moon and Deprivation Theories
    ... body of its atmosphere and ability to nurture and sustain life (Moon). ... The sign and house placement of the Moon in the horoscope is where we ... Moon) then establishes for the astrologer the reigning psychological ... The aspects tie in and bring other planets as ...
    (sci.psychology.misc)
  • Re: Stable Orbit Formulae?
    ... what is the minimum permissible distance between the two bodies such ... You might want to try a search on orbital resonances ... concentric orbits around Sol. ... anyway more of a conjecture) and states that given enough time planets ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Shallow thoughts on evolution and creationism.
    ... Consider orbits, ... and an explanation can be given for why that occurs. ... We observe like we infer is the Moon and infer ... the Earth) can be seen as two different statements. ...
    (talk.origins)