NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:33:47 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<vxECh.4343$Jl.388@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:bedkt25jc2k340fjstt9r0ftctvkun83ns@4ax.com...
>
>> You are the one who calls atheism a belief system. I call you on your
>> lie. Atheism is not a form of belief. Lack of belief is not a system.
>
>A federal court has ruled that atheism IS a religion. Also, the Supreme Court has
>said that a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme be-
>ing. In the 1961case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court described secular humanism
>as "a religion." http://www.afa.net/clp/ReleaseDetail.asp?id=102

If you weren't such a mark for the American Family Association, you
would know that they are trying to mislead you, again and you are trying
to mislead me. TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) has a footnote
that happens to include secular humanism in a list of religions, but
this wasn't actually a question directly related to the case. It takes a
great deal of dishonesty to go from a footnote about a particular
ethical teaching to your assertion that atheism is a religion. I notice
that AFA also failed to provide a citation for their claim about a
Seventh Circuit decision. Without the cite, it is impossible to know how
they managed to misrepresent it.

If you can ever get a cite for it, I'll be happy to discuss the
difference between legal treatments of those who don't believe in any
gods and what that means for the way people act. Until then, I'll just
deal with the fact that self-described Christians seem to enjoy lying.

>"Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God."
> http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/atheismisareligion.txt
>
>Religion may be defined as a personal set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices relating
>to one's understanding of a deity. Atheists do not believe in Deity (God). They can
>not -prove- this. It is their BELIEF. It is in fact therefore their religion as affirmed
>by the courts.

So what. You cannot prove that you are not really controlled by Satan.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 16, 5:59�am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> On 16 Feb., 13:27, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 6:33?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
> > > On 13 Feb., 14:06, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 12, 9:26?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 4:30?pm, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
> > > > > > <Klaz...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
> > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote innews:1171293929.513174.145260@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 4:20?am, bill.m.tho...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Feb 12, 4:32 pm, "Semper Lib?quot; <nopolicesta...@freedom4all.org>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> > "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > >> >news:XzMzh.4236$6a.3198@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> > > > > > > >> > > It is interesting to observe that there are thousands of different
> > > > > > > >> > > God beliefs but NO OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE ANY of these Gods
> > > > > > > >> > > actual
> > > > > > > > ly
> > > > > > > >> > > exist.
>
> > > > > > > >> > What do you call resurrection?
>
> > > > > > > >> An unsubstantiated claim in books written by unknown authors at least
> > > > > > > >> forty years (being generous here) ?after the alleged events. One of
> > > > > > > >> those authors the writer of the gospel attributed to Luke by Irenaeus
> > > > > > > >> in the later half of the second century, makes it clear in the first
> > > > > > > >> few lines that he is just repeating hearsay. Without corroboration by
> > > > > > > >> contemporary Roman records the other authors are also dismissed as
> > > > > > > >> writing hearsay. Especially considering the late date that these were
> > > > > > > >> written (well after the Jewish revolt).
>
> > > > > > > >> > Then there's this.... and a lot more....
>
> > > > > > > >> > The Anthropic Principle
>
> > > > > > > >> <SNIP nonsense about anthropic principle>
>
> > > > > > > >> Dead on arrival. "The puddle marveled that the hole it was in was a
> > > > > > > >> perfect fit".
>
> > > > > > > >> Bill
>
> > > > > > > > Well, since you do not accept any of the New Testament as being valid,
> > > > > > > > let's talk about the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament. ?Does the
> > > > > > > > Book of Isaiah exist, or was it something you say was written as
> > > > > > > > fiction in the second century also?
> > > > > > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > > > > > All of those books exist just as the books titled Harry Potter exist. That
> > > > > > > doesn't mean that the contents are unquestionable.
>
> > > > > > > Klazmon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Well, there is a woman who claims she wrote all of the Harry Potter
> > > > > > books. ?Now you say that all of the books of the Bible exist. ?Did
> > > > > > they just materialize, or were they written also?
> > > > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > > > They were ancient stories 'messed with' years after the said Jesus was supposed to have walked this
> > > > > earth before floating skywards, by priests, king's copywriters in fact anyone who badly needed a
> > > > > book that would 'impress' the people of thetimeand have them 'toe the line'.
>
> > > > > Sadly it still does.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Well, according to the scrolls of Isaiah and other Old Testament
> > > > scrolls found at Qumran, what we have today is word for word what the
> > > > people who buried those scrolls had. ?How do you explain that?
> > > > Those people were Essenes, a Jewish sect.
>
> > > What is there to explain? ?The books were written by somebody. ?So
> > > what?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, here is a Scripture from Isaiah for you to explain.
> > Isaiah 1:12

 

[bob young]

Robibnikoff wrote:

> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:8vkCh.12996$O8.6455@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >
> >
> > It seems to me that atheist who invade Religious Newsgroups
> > with their challenges, insults and attacks on Christians and the
> > Christian Religion are in reality expressing their great hope.
> > IE _the hope that there is no God.

Well no, this atheist hopes there is a god,
then the thousands of other false gods can be revealed fro what they
are, human creations

Until that happens I will have to assume that they are all false

>
>
> That's nice.
> --
> Robyn
> Resident Witchypoo
> BAAWA Knight!
> #1557

 

[Al Klein]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:19:51 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>
>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:sipmt25ulnut5m4tlcdvvtujhq6st6b1pe@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:51:17 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mormonism and Jehovah witnesses are extremes, far out in their beliefs
>> >and practices. Several Mormon groups in Utah, Arizona Montana and
>> >other states still practice polygamy. This is abuse of women and their
>> >offspring. A practice condemned by all Christians.
>>
>> Not by two Christian sects - Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.
>>
>Right! I'm sorry if I was unclear, but I did state that it was "several
>_Mormon_ Groups......."

You said, "A practice condemned by all Christians." Mormons, even
those who abuse women, are Christians, so the practice of abusing
women isn't condemned by all Christians. Actually abuse of women
isn't condemned de facto by most Christians, even though most
Christians give the condemnation lip service.

 

[bob young]

jl wrote:

> On Feb 20, 12:41 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well, here is a scripture from Isaiah. Why don't you try to tell us
> > what it says?
> > Isaiah 2:19 And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into
> > the caves of the earth, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his
> > majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.
> > Robert B. Winn
>
> It may well be talking about the fleeing into caves of those heretic
> sects the Florida fundy was talking about yesterday when he tongue-
> lashed Mitt Romney. "You don't know OUR Lord," the fundy scolded.
>
> Isn't it amusing? If you Christians with the dramatic variances in
> interpretations of the bible weren't railing at us atheists, you'd be
> fighting among yourselves.

"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They
slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot
come to any sort of agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its
own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect
little pigs of those it wins over to its side."
[R.J.Hoffmann]

>
> Let's go to Isaiah, ch. 6, one of my favorites. We had a local lady
> here write a book claiming there were UFO's, flying saucers, in the
> bible, and this chapter provided ample evidence thereof.
>
> Of course, I don't see it, but I do detect a glaring contradiction
> here. Moses longed aloud to see God. So God showed Moses his
> backside, saying that if Mo had seen his face he would surely die.
> But here Isaiah is privileged to see the throned God with his train
> (whatever that is) and angels high and lifted up in the temple.
>
> 1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a
> throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
>
> 2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he
> covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain
> he did fly.
>
> 3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD
> of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
>
> Then an angel, a seraphim, flits down, all six wings a-whirring, and
> anoints Isaiah by burning his mouth with a red-hot coal from God's
> altar. The seraphim holds the fiery hot coal in tongs so as not to
> burn himself.
>
> Well, I guess that's about all for now in our studies of Isaiah except
> one more observation that it looks as though a man will have seven
> wives when this new kingdom is established. Not as enticing as 72
> maidens with regenerating maidenheads but still quite nice.
>
> I wonder what Isaiah was smoking when he wrote chapter 6. Maybe he
> ate a mushroom.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 16, 6:36�am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> In alt.atheism On 15 Feb 2007 18:35:15 -0800, "rbwinn"
> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 15, 5:00?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> >> In alt.atheism On 14 Feb 2007 22:24:28 -0800, "rbwinn"
> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
> >> >On Feb 14, 8:19?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> >> >> In alt.atheism On 14 Feb 2007 15:25:25 -0800, "rbwinn"
> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
> >> >> >On Feb 13, 7:22?pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Feb 13, 8:05 pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:> In alt.atheism On 13 Feb 2007 16:59:35 -0800, "rbwinn"
>
> >> >> >> ...]
>
> >> >> >> Did you notice that nowhere in the Old Testament is the messiah
> >> >> >> predicted to be god? (e messiah is prophesied to bring peace, to
> >> >> >> bring comfort to the wretched, to heal the earth; but nowhere in the
> >> >> >> Old Testament does it say he will be worshiped as a god.
>
> >> >> >Isaiah 9:6
>
> >> >>

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 16, 6:37�am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> In alt.atheism On 15 Feb 2007 18:23:31 -0800, "rbwinn"
> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 15, 4:59?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> >> In alt.atheism On 14 Feb 2007 22:30:36 -0800, "rbwinn"
> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
> >> >On Feb 14, 8:22?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> >> >> In alt.atheism On 14 Feb 2007 15:14:19 -0800, "rbwinn"
> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
> >> >> >On Feb 13, 6:05?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 13 Feb 2007 16:59:35 -0800, "rbwinn"
> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
> >> >> >> >On Feb 13, 2:22 am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 13 Feb., 05:29, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 12, 9:13?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > > rbwinn wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > > On Feb 12, 9:25?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > > > On 12 Feb., 03:23, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > On Feb 11, 4:10?pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ?Not even just one?
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > Damn, you'd think with all that omnipotence and ego, at least one god
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > would make itself known.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Would you like me to send you a copy of the Bible?
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > Why, don't you have any evidence to offer?
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > So you are maintaining that the Bible does not exist. ?Do you have
> >> >> >> >> > > > anything to support your strange belief?
> >> >> >> >> > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> >> >> >> >> > > Of course it exists,
> >> >> >> >> > > so do Aesop's Fables and the Greek Myths- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> >> > Well, if the Bible exists, you should have no objection to reading
> >> >> >> >> > it. (y don't I just send you a copy so that you can actually read
> >> >> >> >> > it?
>
> >> >> >> >> I have read it in 4 different translations and in two different
> >> >> >> >> languages. (ere is still no evidence that it is true.
>
> >> >> >> >How did you like the book of Isaiah?
>
> >> >> >>

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 16, 6:48�am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2007 04:55:08 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1171630508.580619.174...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 13, 5:29?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 13 Feb 2007 05:31:09 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> <1171373469.067414.150...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >On Feb 12, 9:36?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >> On 12 Feb 2007 20:29:29 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> >> <1171340969.769167.274...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >> >Well, if the Bible exists, you should have no objection to reading
> >> >> >it. (y don't I just send you a copy so that you can actually read
> >> >> >it?
>
> >> >> You still retain your totally dishonest approach, I see. You have
> >> >> dishonestly chosen to ignore that the Bible is not evidence even though
> >> >> everyone acknowledges that it exists. Now an honest Christian would
> >> >> merely state that this is what they _believe_ but would never stoop to
> >> >> bearing false witness about what the Bible is or how it should be used.
> >> >> Why have you chosen to bear this false witness?
>
> >> >> Don't bother to offer to send me a Bible. I own half a dozen
> >> >> translations and some commentaries. I know what the Bible says. I don't
> >> >> see any evidence from your postings that you do. It appears that you
> >> >> worship your claims about the Bible and don't care what it really says.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >You acknowledge that the Bible exists?
>
> >> Of course.
>
> >> >In what way do you acknowledge that the Bible exists?
>
> >> In the common meaning of the words.
>
> >> >In my opinion you are saying that you
> >> >acknowledge that the Bible exists while at the sametimesaying that
> >> >it does not exist.
>
> >> No, you don't get to redefine words to try to persuade people that your
> >> lies are not lies.
>
> >> >I think you are getting a little ahead of yourselves.
> >> >There are enough copies of the Bible on earth that you
> >> >are not going to make it disappear.
>
> >> Since I have no intention to do so, why do you engage in such a
> >> dishonest attack?
>
> >> >So if you acknowledge that the Bible exists, you must have some
> >> >explanation for its existence.

 

[James]

Sample answer from the site:

Shem's "age discrepancy"
http://www.tektonics.org/TK-GEN.html

Genesis 5:32, 7:6, 11:10
After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and
Japheth...Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on
the earth...This is the account of Shem. Two years after the flood,
when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of Arphaxad. Looking
at these together, skeptics may deduce that Shem must have been 102,
not 100, when he bore Arphy. This is probably attributable to copyist
error or else "rounding" of years in the typical ANE style, in which
any part of a year is considered a whole year. But a reader added this
idea: Genesis 5:32 does not state that Shem was born when Noah was
500. It simply implies that Noah was 500 before he become a father of
any (or all) of his three sons. Shem's birth 98 years before the flood
(in harmony with Genesis 11:10) would make Noah 502 at the time, thus
proving the non-existence of any contradiction. Additionally, the fact
that Shem was listed first in Genesis 5:32 does not imply that Shem
was the oldest. Genesis 9:22-24 proves that, although Ham is listed
second in various lists of Noah's sons, Ham is actually the youngest!
Similarly, Genesis 10:21 shows that (according to an alternate reading
in the margin of the NASB), Japheth was actually the oldest son.
Therefore, it is very possible that Shem was actually the middle
child. The reason for Shem being listed first was his direct
connection to Abraham, the father of the Hebrews.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 20, 6:39�am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2007 22:06:00 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1171951560.711343.126...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Feb 19, 4:33?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 19 Feb 2007 02:50:40 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> <1171882240.560918.302...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
>
> ...
>
> >> So all Christian and LDS priests are not priests.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >All priests of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are
> >priests.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 20, 7:28�am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 12:41 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 20, 8:59�am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
wrote:
> After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 7:33
> am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 12:39?am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
> > wrote:
> >> After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007
> >> 12:44 am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 19, 10:14?am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007
> >> >> 6:02 am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Feb 18, 10:21?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> Michael Gray wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:33:04 -0500, Darrell Stec
> >> >> >> > <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > ?? - Refer: <53rnsvF1u88b...@mid.individual.net>
> >> >> >> > >After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 18 February
> >> >> >> > >2007 10:53 am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > >> So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of
> >> >> >> > >> monkeys, you claim that he was telling a "yarn"?
> >> >> >> > >> Robert B. Winn
>
> >> >> >> > >I'm unfamiliar with that scripture. ??Perhaps you might
> >> >> >> > >tells us what the phantom bible you got that from says?
>
> >> >> >> > The Ladybird Illustrated Book of Bible stories for Children.
>
> >> >> >> Or the other one
>
> >> >> >> "How to brainwash your children into following The Father"
>
> >> >> >> We jest, but the truth is these things happen
> >> >> >> and it should be declared a criminal offence
>
> >> >> > So if the government could be persuaded into burning all Bibles,
> >> >> > there could be world peace?
> >> >> > Robert B. Winn
>
> >> >> That would be an exercise in futility. ??First (and there is
> >> >> historical precedence for it) not all bibles would be burned.
> >> >> ??Some would be squirreled away (that's why we know about early
> >> >> Christians like the Marcionites, Ebonites, Arianims, and others
> >> >> like the Gnostics.
>
> >> >> Secondly some nuts would come along and invent some new stories
> >> >> for a bible (for instance the one that was later translated as the
> >> >> KJV). ??And in case you haven't noticed, it has been Christianity
> >> >> that burned books throughout history. ??Thinking people are not
> >> >> afraid of ideas. ??If those ideas are wrong then that will be
> >> >> exposed. ??Christians burn the books in order to keep the ideas
> >> >> from being expressed and examined.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Later,
> >> >> Darrell Stec ?? ?? ??dars...@neo.rr.com
> >> > So the best you can do is pretend that you cannot understand what
> >> > the Bible says.
> >> > Robert B. Winn
>
> >> Not only can I understand it, I can and have read the Hebrew
> >> versions, the Greek versions and even Jerome's Latin Vulgate. ??I had
> >> a formal education in the classic languages and theology. ??How about
> >> you?
>
> > Jesus Christ never went to college.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 20, 9:03�am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
wrote:
> After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 7:37
> am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 12:44?am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
> > wrote:
> >> After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007
> >> 12:45 am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 19, 10:16?am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007
> >> >> 6:01 am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Feb 18, 10:17?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> Darrell Stec wrote:
> >> >> >> > After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 18 February
> >> >> >> > 2007 11:20 am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > > Well, yes it does. ??Jesus Christ said that he was the son
> >> >> >> > > of God.
>
> >> >> >> > Where?
>
> >> >> >> They make it up as they go along, they have nothing else
>
> >> >> > So why do they have nothing else? ??Don't they have the trees
> >> >> > and sky and the mountains, etc.? ??Or did all of these things
> >> >> > belong to environmentalists back then like they do today?
> >> >> > Robert B. Winn
>
> >> >> Yours is a totally irrational reply. ??It has nothing to do with
> >> >> the topic. ??Now try answering the question. ??Where does Joshua
> >> >> the oiled one say he is the son of god?
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Later,
> >> >> Darrell Stec ?? ?? ??dars...@neo
> >> > If you want to advertise that you have never read the Bible,
> >> > Darrell, go right ahead.
> >> > Robert B. Winn
>
> >> Quite the opposite Bobbie. ??Not only have I read the Bible many,
> >> many times and own quite a few English versions, I've read the
> >> originals. It is obvious that you have not. ??You avoided my few
> >> questions like the plague. ??But I understand =-- you can only parrot
> >> a few memorized passages from the worst English translation every
> >> created.
>
> > Well, Darrell, you are certainly welcome to your own opinion.

 

[Free Lunch]

On 20 Feb 2007 19:09:57 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172027397.534584.163110@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 16, 6:48?am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 16 Feb 2007 04:55:08 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1171630508.580619.174...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 13, 5:29?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On 13 Feb 2007 05:31:09 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> <1171373469.067414.150...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 12, 9:36?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> On 12 Feb 2007 20:29:29 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> >> <1171340969.769167.274...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> ...
>>
>> >> >> >Well, if the Bible exists, you should have no objection to reading
>> >> >> >it. (y don't I just send you a copy so that you can actually read
>> >> >> >it?
>>
>> >> >> You still retain your totally dishonest approach, I see. You have
>> >> >> dishonestly chosen to ignore that the Bible is not evidence even though
>> >> >> everyone acknowledges that it exists. Now an honest Christian would
>> >> >> merely state that this is what they _believe_ but would never stoop to
>> >> >> bearing false witness about what the Bible is or how it should be used.
>> >> >> Why have you chosen to bear this false witness?
>>
>> >> >> Don't bother to offer to send me a Bible. I own half a dozen
>> >> >> translations and some commentaries. I know what the Bible says. I don't
>> >> >> see any evidence from your postings that you do. It appears that you
>> >> >> worship your claims about the Bible and don't care what it really says.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >You acknowledge that the Bible exists?
>>
>> >> Of course.
>>
>> >> >In what way do you acknowledge that the Bible exists?
>>
>> >> In the common meaning of the words.
>>
>> >> >In my opinion you are saying that you
>> >> >acknowledge that the Bible exists while at the sametimesaying that
>> >> >it does not exist.
>>
>> >> No, you don't get to redefine words to try to persuade people that your
>> >> lies are not lies.
>>
>> >> >I think you are getting a little ahead of yourselves.
>> >> >There are enough copies of the Bible on earth that you
>> >> >are not going to make it disappear.
>>
>> >> Since I have no intention to do so, why do you engage in such a
>> >> dishonest attack?
>>
>> >> >So if you acknowledge that the Bible exists, you must have some
>> >> >explanation for its existence. %t's hear your explanation.
>>
>> >> It was written and edited overtime.
>>
>> >> >Johannes Gutenburg printed copies of the Bible.
>>
>> >> Wow, you know something.
>>
>> >> >There must have been
>> >> >some way that the words he printed were arranged in the order he
>> >> >printed them. 2 is it your belief that the people who set the type
>> >> >were the first ones to put the words in that order?
>>
>> >> Keep it up. You are doing an excellent job of mocking your religion.
>>
>> >I am not an atheist.
>>
>> Didn't you claim to be LDS? That is the religion that you are bringing
>> into disrepute with your lies.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>You think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been
>brought into disrepute? Exactly how do you think this happened?

You are doing your best to bring it into disrepute with your absurd
claims and intentional lies.

 

[Dan@V.A.]

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dadnt2h4as072hup4ltv7ccdmfed64n21d@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:19:51 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:sipmt25ulnut5m4tlcdvvtujhq6st6b1pe@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:51:17 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mormonism and Jehovah witnesses are extremes, far out in their beliefs
> >> >and practices. Several Mormon groups in Utah, Arizona Montana and
> >> >other states still practice polygamy. This is abuse of women and their
> >> >offspring. A practice condemned by all Christians.
> >>
> >> Not by two Christian sects - Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.
> >>
> >Right! I'm sorry if I was unclear, but I did state that it was "several
> >_Mormon_ Groups......."
>
> You said, "A practice condemned by all Christians." Mormons, even
> those who abuse women, are Christians, so the practice of abusing
> women isn't condemned by all Christians. Actually abuse of women
> isn't condemned de facto by most Christians, even though most
> Christians give the condemnation lip service.
>
You are mincing words, even the Largest Mormon Church condemns
these off-shoot Mormon groups. Certainly, those practicing polygamy
do not condemn the practice, nor did I say they did. Do you imply that
other Christians condone the practice of polygamy?

Dan Wood, DDS

 

[Free Lunch]

On 20 Feb 2007 19:03:55 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172027035.071208.320730@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 16, 6:36?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism On 15 Feb 2007 18:35:15 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 15, 5:00?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> >> In alt.atheism On 14 Feb 2007 22:24:28 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 14, 8:19?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In alt.atheism On 14 Feb 2007 15:25:25 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 13, 7:22?pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Feb 13, 8:05 pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:> In alt.atheism On 13 Feb 2007 16:59:35 -0800, "rbwinn"
>>
>> >> >> >> ...]
>>
>> >> >> >> Did you notice that nowhere in the Old Testament is the messiah
>> >> >> >> predicted to be god? (e messiah is prophesied to bring peace, to
>> >> >> >> bring comfort to the wretched, to heal the earth; but nowhere in the
>> >> >> >> Old Testament does it say he will be worshiped as a god.
>>
>> >> >> >Isaiah 9:6
>>
>> >> >> See Is 8:3. That is the child spoken of in Is 9:6.
>>
>> >> >No, sorry.
>>
>> >> Sorry, but it's true. Only if one takes Is 9:6 completely out
>> >> of context can it be applied to jesus. Will you admit to taking Is 9:6
>> >> completely out of context?
>>
>> >> Don
>>
>> >Well, let's work over to it, Don.
>>
>> No, there's no working over to it. The fact is that the child
>> born in Is 8:3 fills the prophecy from Is 7:14 and is being lauded
>> from Is 8:5 on, continuing through Is 9.
>>
>> Interesting note: if you read Is 9:1-2 and then find Matt
>> 4:12-16, you'll see how the former verses were concatenated to invent
>> a prophecy that doesn't actually exist.
>>
>Well, as an apostle, Matthew certainly had the authority to say what
>Isaiah meant by his prophecy.

I have no reason to believe that Matthew had any authority.

>So what is your authority to say that Matthew was concatenating
>something?

You haven't actually read Isaiah or you don't have any idea what
concatenate means or both.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 20, 9:28�am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
wrote:
> After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 7:40
> am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 4:41?am, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> >> Darrell Stec wrote:
> >> > After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 18 February 2007
> >> > 10:59 am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >> > > I feel better already. ??Here is a verse from Isaiah to brighten
> >> > > your day.
>
> >> > Which Isaiah? ??You realize that there were at least four people or
> >> > schools writing under the name of Isaiah and throughout several
> >> > centuries don't you? ??Isaiah is a composition by many not the work
> >> > of one man.
>
> >> "... the Bible was a collection of books written at different times
> >> by different men, a strange mixture of diverse human documents, and a
> >> tissue of irreconcilable notions. Inspired? The Bible is not even
> >> intelligent. It is not even good craftsmanship, but is full of
> >> absurdities and contradictions."
> >> [E. Haldeman-Julius, "The Meaning Of Atheism"]
>
> > Sorry, Darrell, no one can fake writing like Isaiah.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 20, 10:13�am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 10:10 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well, I am probably less impressed by lawyers than Brigham Young was.
>
> Judging by his many lawsuits and his comments about the lawyers
> afterwards, he hated them.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 20, 2:22?pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:51:17 -0500, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Mormonism and Jehovah witnesses are extremes, far out in their beliefs
> >and practices. Several Mormon groups in Utah, Arizona Montana and
> >other states still practice polygamy. This is abuse of women and their
> >offspring. A practice condemned by all Christians.
>
> Not by two Christian sects - Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Atheists are the ones who are the greatest abusers of women.
Robert B. Winn

 

[A Spastic Colon]

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in news:1172030782.372449.111750
@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com:

> Atheists are the ones who are the greatest abusers of women.

Uh, how?