NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

On 21 Feb 2007 02:40:02 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <45DC04EA.BEDE5A75@netvigator.com>
>
>
>Darrell Stec wrote:
>
>> After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 10:58
>> pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
>>
>> > 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. ??He was the
>> >> > only one who wrote the way he wrote.
>> >> > Robert B. Winn
>> >>
>> >> How can you make statements like that? ??You can't read the Hebrew it
>> >> was written in. ??Even several of my bibles explicity state that
>> >> Isaiah was written by a minimum of three different schools or
>> >> persons. ??The grammar and syntax varies in style (and content) among
>> >> those writers. You can't read the originals, nor understand the fine
>> >> nuances of the Hebrew language. ??Can you name any real biblical
>> >> scholar of today who shares your viewpoint?
>> >>
>> >> Your own LDS scholars do not agree with you. ??Note: "John Tvedtnes,
>> >> senior project manager for FARMS, has written technical studies on
>> >> Hebraisms and Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon." which can be
>> >> found athttp://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoint10-2.html.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Later,
>> >> Darrell Stec ?? ?? ??dars...@neo.rr.com
>> >>
>> > I do not really care what some college boys think. The key to Isaiah
>> > is in the pattern of the words. Same pattern as Matthew 6:9-13.
>> > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> What arrogance!!!! You who admittedly have little to no education
>> dismisses with the stroke of a keyboard what biblical scholars of his
>> own faith have researched. What biblical scholars do you think have no
>> education? Do you live in the Deep South Bible Belt. You would be at
>> home by all those ignoramuses that oft repeat, "Book larnin' ain't
>> nuthin'"
>>
>> Besides you are utterly daft........
>
>I doubt Americans in general know the meaning of this very English
>expression

Then let's try it in Australian vernacular: "a total ****wit"

:

--
 
Michael Gray wrote:

> On 21 Feb 2007 02:40:02 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <45DC04EA.BEDE5A75@netvigator.com>
> >
> >
> >Darrell Stec wrote:
> >
> >> After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 10:58
> >> pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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. ??He was the
> >> >> > only one who wrote the way he wrote.
> >> >> > Robert B. Winn
> >> >>
> >> >> How can you make statements like that? ??You can't read the Hebrew it
> >> >> was written in. ??Even several of my bibles explicity state that
> >> >> Isaiah was written by a minimum of three different schools or
> >> >> persons. ??The grammar and syntax varies in style (and content) among
> >> >> those writers. You can't read the originals, nor understand the fine
> >> >> nuances of the Hebrew language. ??Can you name any real biblical
> >> >> scholar of today who shares your viewpoint?
> >> >>
> >> >> Your own LDS scholars do not agree with you. ??Note: "John Tvedtnes,
> >> >> senior project manager for FARMS, has written technical studies on
> >> >> Hebraisms and Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon." which can be
> >> >> found athttp://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoint10-2.html.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Later,
> >> >> Darrell Stec ?? ?? ??dars...@neo.rr.com
> >> >>
> >> > I do not really care what some college boys think. The key to Isaiah
> >> > is in the pattern of the words. Same pattern as Matthew 6:9-13.
> >> > Robert B. Winn
> >>
> >> What arrogance!!!! You who admittedly have little to no education
> >> dismisses with the stroke of a keyboard what biblical scholars of his
> >> own faith have researched. What biblical scholars do you think have no
> >> education? Do you live in the Deep South Bible Belt. You would be at
> >> home by all those ignoramuses that oft repeat, "Book larnin' ain't
> >> nuthin'"
> >>
> >> Besides you are utterly daft........
> >
> >I doubt Americans in general know the meaning of this very English
> >expression
>
> Then let's try it in Australian vernacular: "a total ****wit"

Aaaah they will get that one Mate

>
>
> :
>
> --
 
On Feb 20, 11:06 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> Atheists are the ones who are the greatest abusers of women.
> Robert B. Winn

Cite? Or did you just pull another one out of your hat?
 
On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2007 20:04:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172030661.281379.130...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >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. ou can read the particulars in an article
> >> by Orma Linford, "The Mormons, the Law, and the Territory of Utah,"
> >> and in many of Young's writings.
>
> >> If it is any consolation to you I'm sure the Mormons had reason to
> >> distrust law and lawyers from their many bad experiences in Missouri
> >> and Illinois.
>
> >> > Since you know so much about law, perhaps you could tell us your
> >> > interpretation of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the
> >> > United States.
>
> >> A conscientious writer could spend a year writing about the 6th
> >> Amendment, it is so rich with caselaw and judicial gloss.
> >oreover,
> >> because of the 19th century's 14th Amendment, the 6th Amendment is now
> >> applied to the states and their subdivisions, including Utah and SLC.
>
> >> Legal issues:
> >> pretrial rights
> >> venue
> >> in gremio legis
> >> speedy trial
> >> open proceedings, no closed courtrooms, no secret trials
> >> impartial jury of peers
> >> jurisdiction
> >> no ex post facto
> >> notice of charges in full particulars of facts and law so that accused
> >> may prepare his defense
> >> opportunity to be heard
> >> confrontation with witnesses, no trial in absentia
> >> subpoena power to compel attendance of witness and to bring documents
> >> and things
> >> (subpoena ad testificandum, subpoena duces tecum)
> >> right to attorney
>
> >> What part of it piques your curiosity? r is it the whole damn thing?
>
> >> AMENDMENT VI.
> >> Right to speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
> >> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
> >> speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
> >> district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
> >> shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
> >> the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
> >> witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
> >> witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
> >> defence.
>
> >> Now, Robbie, don't be sending me off another one of those wild goose
> >> chases.
> >> We're talking about whether there is a god, and btw the brains who
> >> drafted the 6th did not believe in a god, at least not in an
> >> intervenor who paid any attention to the affairs of humanity.
>
> >The part that says in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a
> >right to trial by jury. Lawyers claim this means that in most
> >criminal prosecutions, the accused has no such right.
> >Robert B. Winn
>
> Could you show me where the Supreme Court said that you don't have the
> right to a trial by jury in criminal prosecutions?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't know that the Supreme Court has addressed the issue lately.
In my state of North Carolina the right is preserved by de novo appeal
to a jury from an adverse decision by a judge. In which case if you
are convicted the judge will punish you by a sentence much harsher
than that of the court below. I note that in Tennessee if you appeal
from a guilty verdict by a judge, in a court where the officer can
testify to hearsay and summarize the testimony of all the other
witnesses while you object until you are red in the face, you are
required to pay a filing fee up front. That, imho, is
unconstitutional, a violation of the 6th Amendment. I have read that
in other states, like Nevada, the accused is subverted by various
devices from asserting his 6th Amendment right to jury trial.

I do know that in many appellate court decisions nowadays, where the
courts have been packed with rightwing ideologs, doubleplusthink,
doublespeak, and Ingsoc have crept into the decisions.
 
On Feb 21, 1:11 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Free Lunch" wrote in messagenews:8s4nt2h6gpnmh27021i30ngvod1d0n6247@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >>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.
>
> So, Mr. Lunch denies God but openly acknowledges Satan - his true master.

You religious nuts love your logical fallacies as much as you love
your fallacy in the sky.
 
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:57:00 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>You are mincing words, even the Largest Mormon Church condemns
>these off-shoot Mormon groups.

"These off-shoot Mormon groups" are still Christians, and they don't
condemn their own practices, so not all Christians condemn these
practices. Whether you consider them Christian or not is irrelevant.

> Certainly, those practicing polygamy
>do not condemn the practice, nor did I say they did.

They're Christian, and you said ALL Christians condemned the practice,
so you said that they condemned it.

> Do you imply that
>other Christians condone the practice of polygamy?

That wasn't your claim.
 
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:22:10 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>On 20 Feb 2007 20:06:22 -0800, in alt.atheism
>"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
><1172030782.372449.111750@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>>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.
>
>My, aren't you defensive -- and wrong, of course.

Robert posts, therefore he's wrong.
 
On Feb 20, 11:04 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> 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. ?You can read the particulars in an article
> > by Orma Linford, "The Mormons, the Law, and the Territory of Utah,"
> > and in many of Young's writings.
>
> > If it is any consolation to you I'm sure the Mormons had reason to
> > distrust law and lawyers from their many bad experiences in Missouri
> > and Illinois.
>
> > > Since you know so much about law, perhaps you could tell us your
> > > interpretation of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the
> > > United States.
>
> > A conscientious writer could spend a year writing about the 6th
> > Amendment, it is so rich with caselaw and judicial gloss. ?Moreover,
> > because of the 19th century's 14th Amendment, the 6th Amendment is now
> > applied to the states and their subdivisions, including Utah and SLC.
>
> > Legal issues:
> > pretrial rights
> > venue
> > in gremio legis
> > speedy trial
> > open proceedings, no closed courtrooms, no secret trials
> > impartial jury of peers
> > jurisdiction
> > no ex post facto
> > notice of charges in full particulars of facts and law so that accused
> > may prepare his defense
> > opportunity to be heard
> > confrontation with witnesses, no trial in absentia
> > subpoena power to compel attendance of witness and to bring documents
> > and things
> > (subpoena ad testificandum, subpoena duces tecum)
> > right to attorney
>
> > What part of it piques your curiosity? ?Or is it the whole damn thing?
>
> > AMENDMENT VI.
> > Right to speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
> > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
> > speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
> > district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
> > shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
> > the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
> > witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
> > witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
> > defence.
>
> > Now, Robbie, don't be sending me off another one of those wild goose
> > chases.
> > We're talking about whether there is a god, and btw the brains who
> > drafted the 6th did not believe in a god, at least not in an
> > intervenor who paid any attention to the affairs of humanity.
>
> The part that says in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a
> right to trial by jury. Lawyers claim this means that in most
> criminal prosecutions, the accused has no such right.
>

Of course, the law is what the judges say it is. Our government can
at pleasure change the definition of "criminal prosecution." See, for
example, where Justice O'Connor says the feds and states don't need a
jury for petty offenses:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-6465.ZO.html

BTW, Robbie, your definition of the ****atrice is in error. Here
again the OT and one or more of the several Isaiahs stole from pagan
mythology. This is the ****atrice:

****atrice - monster hatched by a reptile from a ****'s egg; able to
kill with a glance

Remember, Robbie: "Religion is based on the fears of the many and the
cleverness of the few." -- Stendhal
 
"Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:bBKCh.20344$6a.3708@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:5411o6F1u4oblU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:8vkCh.12996$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.
>>
>> That's nice.
>>
> Given the two choices:
> 1) A CREATOR exist and he created the universe
> 2) There is no god, therefore, the Universe could not
> have been created by a God.
>>
> I believe to the totally _unbiased_ the evidence,

Which is what, exactly?

I believe
> comes down on the side of those people who believe in the
> existence of God.

Why?

> It may or may _not_ have been the God
> of the Bible.

Okay, where's the evidence?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
 
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:nijot21c4sn80e45unu1lhbc8nk88rksu3@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:57:00 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >You are mincing words, even the Largest Mormon Church condemns
> >these off-shoot Mormon groups.
>
> "These off-shoot Mormon groups" are still Christians, and they don't
> condemn their own practices, so not all Christians condemn these
> practices. Whether you consider them Christian or not is irrelevant.
>
IOW, there is no characteristics that places a group outside
or your notion of Christanity. Even where there is no belief
system or nothing nothing in common with the majority of
Christians.
>
> > Certainly, those practicing polygamy
> >do not condemn the practice, nor did I say they did.
>
> They're Christian, and you said ALL Christians condemned the practice,
> so you said that they condemned it.
>
Where is your evidence that they are Christian? >
> > Do you imply that
> >other Christians condone the practice of polygamy?
>
> That wasn't your claim.
>
They worship three different gods and have a different
Christ born in a different location. Their Christ was born
of another man who had progressed to godhood through
the institution and practice of polygamy. Their Mary was
one of their god's wives. Through polygamy and having
offspring throughout this life and the life to come they
can and many will become gods themselves.
These gods will be gods over their own world and
work out their own plan of salvation for their believers.
This is how they justify the practice.
This is foreign to any legimate Christian group. Protestant,
Catholic or Orthorodox.
You are right, they are not Christian. They are heathens.

Dan
 
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:5437fmF1uudilU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:bBKCh.20344$6a.3708@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> > news:5411o6F1u4oblU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>
> >> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> news:8vkCh.12996$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.
> >>
> >> That's nice.
> >>
> > Given the two choices:
> > 1) A CREATOR exist and he created the universe
> > 2) There is no god, therefore, the Universe could not
> > have been created by a God.
> >>
> > I believe to the totally _unbiased_ the evidence,
>
> Which is what, exactly?
>
> I believe
> > comes down on the side of those people who believe in the
> > existence of God.
>
> Why?
>
> > It may or may _not_ have been the God
> > of the Bible.
>
> Okay, where's the evidence?
>
Do you really care? I have yet to find an atheist seriously
interested. From my experience, I have found that eventually
most will resort to personal attacks. The point is Atheist
come on Christian NGs with charges, challenges and
condemnations of the Christian faith. Since, I don't have
any desire to convert anyone, it doesn't matter whether or
not anyone agrees. My mother was a devout Christian. I will
defend her. But you, I don't care about. The question is why
do you care to enough about me to convince me that there is
no God?

Dan Wood, DDS
> --
> Robyn
> Resident Witchypoo
> BAAWA Knight!
> #1557
>
>
 
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:47:46 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>
>"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>news:5437fmF1uudilU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:bBKCh.20344$6a.3708@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>> > news:5411o6F1u4oblU1@mid.individual.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:8vkCh.12996$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.
>> >>
>> >> That's nice.
>> >>
>> > Given the two choices:
>> > 1) A CREATOR exist and he created the universe
>> > 2) There is no god, therefore, the Universe could not
>> > have been created by a God.
>> >>
>> > I believe to the totally _unbiased_ the evidence,
>>
>> Which is what, exactly?
>>
>> I believe
>> > comes down on the side of those people who believe in the
>> > existence of God.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> > It may or may _not_ have been the God
>> > of the Bible.
>>
>> Okay, where's the evidence?
>>
>Do you really care? I have yet to find an atheist seriously
>interested. From my experience, I have found that eventually
>most will resort to personal attacks. The point is Atheist
>come on Christian NGs with charges, challenges and
>condemnations of the Christian faith. Since, I don't have
>any desire to convert anyone, it doesn't matter whether or
>not anyone agrees. My mother was a devout Christian. I will
>defend her. But you, I don't care about. The question is why
>do you care to enough about me to convince me that there is
>no God?

Because Dan, to an athiest, watching people continue to believe in
something that we know to be completely untrue, is kind of like
watching a crazy person that believes in some obvious delusion. You
wouldn't let a man who thinks drinking lead paint will give him super
powers continue to do such an obviously harmful thing to himself.

Now, your little delusion of a magic man in the sky that knows
everything and created the universe, is not nearly as immediately self
destuctive as our paint drinking lunatic...it has its insidious and
harmful issues as well.
 
On Feb 21, 11:25 am, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:nijot21c4sn80e45unu1lhbc8nk88rksu3@4ax.com...> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:57:00 -0500, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >You are mincing words, even the Largest Mormon Church condemns
> > >these off-shoot Mormon groups.

That's only because mainstream Mormons were required to abandon
polygamy as a condition of statehood. While mainstream mormondom was
seated in Utah Territory, all mormons practiced polygamy.

>
> > "These off-shoot Mormon groups" are still Christians, and they don't
> > condemn their own practices, so not all Christians condemn these
> > practices. Whether you consider them Christian or not is irrelevant.
>
> IOW, there is no characteristics that places a group outside
> or your notion of Christanity. Even where there is no belief
> system or nothing nothing in common with the majority of
> Christians.
>
> > > Certainly, those practicing polygamy
> > >do not condemn the practice, nor did I say they did.
>
> > They're Christian, and you said ALL Christians condemned the practice,
> > so you said that they condemned it.
>
> Where is your evidence that they are Christian? >> > Do you imply that
> > >other Christians condone the practice of polygamy?
>
> > That wasn't your claim.
>
> They worship three different gods

So do all the other Christians. They worship Jesus, God, and the
Holy Spirit, all three separate entities. The Holy Spirit's status is
slightly higher than the other two since if you blaspheme him you're
irrevocably damned, while you can receive clemency for blasphemy
against Jesus or God.



and have a different
> Christ born in a different location.

So YOU know where Christ was born? Nobody really knows if he ever
existed.



Their Christ was born
> of another man who had progressed to godhood through
> the institution and practice of polygamy. Their Mary was
> one of their god's wives. Through polygamy and having
> offspring throughout this life and the life to come they
> can and many will become gods themselves.

Most of the clergy here on earth already believe themselves to be
gods.
Every one I ever knew got off on his power and influence so much he
decided he was divine. Witness the case of Ken "Dino" Hovind, who
just went to Florida prison for 10 years for refusing to pay taxes.
He thought he was God.

> These gods will be gods over their own world and
> work out their own plan of salvation for their believers.
> This is how they justify the practice.
> This is foreign to any legimate Christian group.

Ah, smug and haughty you are there, fella. No Christian group is any
more "legitimate" than any other Christian group, thanks to the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Nor is any Christian
group any more legitimate than a Wiccan group, or Buddhist group, or
Santerian group (which sacrifices pigeons and goats).


Protestant,
> Catholic or Orthorodox.
> You are right, they are not Christian. They are heathens.

So you're at loggerheads. You're deadlocked and at a dead end. They
think you are heathen.

Fortunately for you, if all you cults and sects and denominations
weren't arguing with us beloved atheists, you'd be burning each other
at the stake.
 
"jl" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1172079419.617178.106010@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 21, 11:25 am, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> >
> > news:nijot21c4sn80e45unu1lhbc8nk88rksu3@4ax.com...> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007
22:57:00 -0500, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > >You are mincing words, even the Largest Mormon Church condemns
> > > >these off-shoot Mormon groups.
>
> That's only because mainstream Mormons were required to abandon
> polygamy as a condition of statehood. While mainstream mormondom was
> seated in Utah Territory, all mormons practiced polygamy.
>
> >
> > > "These off-shoot Mormon groups" are still Christians, and they don't
> > > condemn their own practices, so not all Christians condemn these
> > > practices. Whether you consider them Christian or not is irrelevant.
> >
> > IOW, there is no characteristics that places a group outside
> > or your notion of Christanity. Even where there is no belief
> > system or nothing nothing in common with the majority of
> > Christians.
> >
> > > > Certainly, those practicing polygamy
> > > >do not condemn the practice, nor did I say they did.
> >
> > > They're Christian, and you said ALL Christians condemned the practice,
> > > so you said that they condemned it.
> >
> > Where is your evidence that they are Christian? >> > Do you imply that
> > > >other Christians condone the practice of polygamy?
> >
> > > That wasn't your claim.
> >
> > They worship three different gods
>
> So do all the other Christians. They worship Jesus, God, and the
> Holy Spirit, all three separate entities.
>
You don't know what you are talking about. An analogy is water.
It can be liquid, gas or solid. But it still one. Same with the Christian
concept of their God.
>
The Holy Spirit's status is
> slightly higher than the other two since if you blaspheme him you're
> irrevocably damned, while you can receive clemency for blasphemy
> against Jesus or God.
>
>
>
> and have a different
> > Christ born in a different location.
>
> So YOU know where Christ was born? Nobody really knows if he ever
> existed.
>
The Mormon Christ was born in Jerusalem, the Christian God was
born in Bethlehem. Two diffeent cities, according the two Bibles
ie the Christian Bible and the Mormon Bible (the Book of Mormon)
>
>
> Their Christ was born
> > of another man who had progressed to godhood through
> > the institution and practice of polygamy. Their Mary was
> > one of their god's wives. Through polygamy and having
> > offspring throughout this life and the life to come they
> > can and many will become gods themselves.
>
> Most of the clergy here on earth already believe themselves to be
> gods.
>
This is BS and I think you know it.
>
> Every one I ever knew got off on his power and influence so much he
> decided he was divine. Witness the case of Ken "Dino" Hovind, who
> just went to Florida prison for 10 years for refusing to pay taxes.
> He thought he was God.
>
> > These gods will be gods over their own world and
> > work out their own plan of salvation for their believers.
> > This is how they justify the practice.
> > This is foreign to any legimate Christian group.
>
> Ah, smug and haughty you are there, fella. No Christian group is any
> more "legitimate" than any other Christian group, thanks to the
> Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Nor is any Christian
> group any more legitimate than a Wiccan group, or Buddhist group, or
> Santerian group (which sacrifices pigeons and goats).
>
>
> Protestant,
> > Catholic or Orthorodox.
> > You are right, they are not Christian. They are heathens.
>
> So you're at loggerheads. You're deadlocked and at a dead end. They
> think you are heathen.
>
> Fortunately for you, if all you cults and sects and denominations
> weren't arguing with us beloved atheists, you'd be burning each other
> at the stake.
>
This is BS. How can you be so asinine?
>
>
>
 
"Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2E_Ch.21137$6a.20611@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:5437fmF1uudilU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:bBKCh.20344$6a.3708@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>> > news:5411o6F1u4oblU1@mid.individual.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:8vkCh.12996$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.
>> >>
>> >> That's nice.
>> >>
>> > Given the two choices:
>> > 1) A CREATOR exist and he created the universe
>> > 2) There is no god, therefore, the Universe could not
>> > have been created by a God.
>> >>
>> > I believe to the totally _unbiased_ the evidence,
>>
>> Which is what, exactly?
>>
>> I believe
>> > comes down on the side of those people who believe in the
>> > existence of God.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> > It may or may _not_ have been the God
>> > of the Bible.
>>
>> Okay, where's the evidence?
>>
> Do you really care? I have yet to find an atheist seriously
> interested.

I guess this is your quaint way of saying that you don't really have any
evidence and were just talking out your ass. Thank you for the
clarification. Silly me for expecting you to be honest. My bad.

From my experience, I have found that eventually
> most will resort to personal attacks. The point is Atheist
> come on Christian NGs with charges, challenges and
> condemnations of the Christian faith.

The point is it appears my questions were to difficult for you to answer.
Otherwise you would have just done so instead of engaging in this ridiculous
song & dance.

Since, I don't have
> any desire to convert anyone, it doesn't matter whether or
> not anyone agrees. My mother was a devout Christian. I will
> defend her.

That's nice, but I don't see why you think I would give a ****.

But you, I don't care about. The question is why
> do you care to enough about me to convince me that there is
> no God?

Of course not. I don't give a flying **** about what you believe in. I just
wanted to see if you could back up your assertions with evidence.

Obviously not. Oh well.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
 
On Feb 18, 10:11 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2007 08:20:47 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1171815647.683755.31...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 18, 8:57?am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 18 Feb 2007 07:53:50 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> <1171814030.140365.45...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >On Feb 17, 10:32?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> >> >> Bill M wrote:
> >> >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:1171521149.118439.271150@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > On Feb 14, 9:21?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >> > > On 14 Feb 2007 18:59:33 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> >> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> >> > > <1171508373.435033.309...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >> > > >On Feb 14, 5:24?pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> On Feb 14, 6:44 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > >> > On 14 Feb 2007 15:16:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> >> > > >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> >> > > >> > <1171494978.705022.208...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >> > > >> > ...
>
> >> >> > > >> > >Well, that is a myth that atheists like to tell. incoln said on
> >> >> > > >> > >several occasions that he believed the Bible.
>
> >> >> > > >> > Source with complete context please.
>
> >> >> > > >> You'll never get it, not anything genuine.
>
> >> >> > > >> Our religious kook might give you a forgery, as David Barton did in
> >> >> > > >> his book.
>
> >> >> > > forged quote of Lincoln is making its rounds in usenet at>> this very
> >> >> > > moment. 4 recommends hunting down and hanging anyone
> >> >> > > >> critical of the war effort.
>
> >> >> > > pundit has already confessed that he is
>
> >> >> > > >> the author of the quote.
>
> >> >> > > >> The fraud was perpetrated by one of the Moonie rags, either the Moonie
> >> >> > > >> Times or that bag of internet lies called _Insight Magazine._
>
> >> >> > > >Well, why don't you atheists just wait until after the resurrection
> >> >> > > >and ask Abraham Lincoln in person if he believed the Bible?
> >> >> > > >I see no reason to worry about it myself.
>
> >> >> > > Because you know that you have absolutely no evidence at all that there
> >> >> > > is going to be a resurrection, yet you keep trying to duck questions
> >> >> > > with your silly incantation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> > Jesus Christ was resurrected. (at is all the evidence we need.
> >> >> > Robert B. Winn
>
> >> >> > You do not seem to understand the difference between a claim, a fable and
> >> >> > objective verifiable evidence!
>
> >> >> He only accepts what his mummy told him, forgetting that her mummy told her
> >> >> and then her mummy told her and 'ad infinitum' - well not exactly, as sooner
> >> >> or later we reach back to a small group of primitives that made the myth up in
> >> >> the first place.
>
> >> >> It's s hard to accept the fact that one's parents and grandparents were
> >> >> telling unsubstantiated yarns - maybe for the best possible reasons, but
> >> >> 'yarns' nevertheless- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys,
> >> >you claim that he was telling a "yarn"?
>
> >> Since Jesus never said that, you are the one telling a tall tale. Still,
> >> when it comes to science, it doesn't really matter what someone claims
> >> Jesus said. The people who were writing these stories about Jesus had no
> >> idea about common descent or evolution. I would be impressed with the
> >> Bible if it had actually talked about it, but it doesn't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Well, yes it does. Jesus Christ said that he was the son of God.
> >That does not leave any room for monkeys in his geneology. My
> >genealogy is the same way Jesus Christ's is.
> >Robert B. Winn
>
> Matthew 5:1Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and
> sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying:
> 3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
> for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
> 4Blessed are those who mourn,
> for they will be comforted.
> 5Blessed are the meek,
> for they will inherit the earth.
> 6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
> for they will be filled.
> 7Blessed are the merciful,
> for they will be shown mercy.
> 8Blessed are the pure in heart,
> for they will see God.
> 9Blessed are the peacemakers,
> for they will be called sons of God.
> 10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
> for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
>
> Note verse 8.

Thank you, Lunch. Wonderful to see you quoting scriptures.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Feb 21, 6:06 am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 20 Feb 2007 20:04:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > <1172030661.281379.130...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >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. ou can read the particulars in an article
> > >> by Orma Linford, "The Mormons, the Law, and the Territory of Utah,"
> > >> and in many of Young's writings.
>
> > >> If it is any consolation to you I'm sure the Mormons had reason to
> > >> distrust law and lawyers from their many bad experiences in Missouri
> > >> and Illinois.
>
> > >> > Since you know so much about law, perhaps you could tell us your
> > >> > interpretation of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the
> > >> > United States.
>
> > >> A conscientious writer could spend a year writing about the 6th
> > >> Amendment, it is so rich with caselaw and judicial gloss.
> > >oreover,
> > >> because of the 19th century's 14th Amendment, the 6th Amendment is now
> > >> applied to the states and their subdivisions, including Utah and SLC.
>
> > >> Legal issues:
> > >> pretrial rights
> > >> venue
> > >> in gremio legis
> > >> speedy trial
> > >> open proceedings, no closed courtrooms, no secret trials
> > >> impartial jury of peers
> > >> jurisdiction
> > >> no ex post facto
> > >> notice of charges in full particulars of facts and law so that accused
> > >> may prepare his defense
> > >> opportunity to be heard
> > >> confrontation with witnesses, no trial in absentia
> > >> subpoena power to compel attendance of witness and to bring documents
> > >> and things
> > >> (subpoena ad testificandum, subpoena duces tecum)
> > >> right to attorney
>
> > >> What part of it piques your curiosity? r is it the whole damn thing?
>
> > >> AMENDMENT VI.
> > >> Right to speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
> > >> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
> > >> speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
> > >> district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
> > >> shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
> > >> the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
> > >> witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
> > >> witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
> > >> defence.
>
> > >> Now, Robbie, don't be sending me off another one of those wild goose
> > >> chases.
> > >> We're talking about whether there is a god, and btw the brains who
> > >> drafted the 6th did not believe in a god, at least not in an
> > >> intervenor who paid any attention to the affairs of humanity.
>
> > >The part that says in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a
> > >right to trial by jury. Lawyers claim this means that in most
> > >criminal prosecutions, the accused has no such right.
> > >Robert B. Winn
>
> > Could you show me where the Supreme Court said that you don't have the
> > right to a trial by jury in criminal prosecutions?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I don't know that the Supreme Court has addressed the issue lately.
> In my state of North Carolina the right is preserved by de novo appeal
> to a jury from an adverse decision by a judge. In which case if you
> are convicted the judge will punish you by a sentence much harsher
> than that of the court below. I note that in Tennessee if you appeal
> from a guilty verdict by a judge, in a court where the officer can
> testify to hearsay and summarize the testimony of all the other
> witnesses while you object until you are red in the face, you are
> required to pay a filing fee up front. That, imho, is
> unconstitutional, a violation of the 6th Amendment. I have read that
> in other states, like Nevada, the accused is subverted by various
> devices from asserting his 6th Amendment right to jury trial.
>
> I do know that in many appellate court decisions nowadays, where the
> courts have been packed with rightwing ideologs, doubleplusthink,
> doublespeak, and Ingsoc have crept into the decisions.

This all dates back to a minority opinion written by Thurgood Marshall
that the sixth amendment did not really guarantee right to trial by
jury.
After that, state courts began denying right to trial by jury until we
have reached the present condition where very few people are actually
given an opportunity to have a trial by jury.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 06:11:45 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<BoRCh.2394$PL.1098@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:8s4nt2h6gpnmh27021i30ngvod1d0n6247@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>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.
>
>
>So, Mr. Lunch denies God but openly acknowledges Satan - his true master.

No, I merely made a simple logical point. I could have said Loki, Santa
Claus or Rudolph.

There is no evidence for God or Satan or any other gods of Christianity
or any other religions.
 
On Feb 21, 6:57 am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 11:04 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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. ?You can read the particulars in an article
> > > by Orma Linford, "The Mormons, the Law, and the Territory of Utah,"
> > > and in many of Young's writings.
>
> > > If it is any consolation to you I'm sure the Mormons had reason to
> > > distrust law and lawyers from their many bad experiences in Missouri
> > > and Illinois.
>
> > > > Since you know so much about law, perhaps you could tell us your
> > > > interpretation of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the
> > > > United States.
>
> > > A conscientious writer could spend a year writing about the 6th
> > > Amendment, it is so rich with caselaw and judicial gloss. ?Moreover,
> > > because of the 19th century's 14th Amendment, the 6th Amendment is now
> > > applied to the states and their subdivisions, including Utah and SLC.
>
> > > Legal issues:
> > > pretrial rights
> > > venue
> > > in gremio legis
> > > speedy trial
> > > open proceedings, no closed courtrooms, no secret trials
> > > impartial jury of peers
> > > jurisdiction
> > > no ex post facto
> > > notice of charges in full particulars of facts and law so that accused
> > > may prepare his defense
> > > opportunity to be heard
> > > confrontation with witnesses, no trial in absentia
> > > subpoena power to compel attendance of witness and to bring documents
> > > and things
> > > (subpoena ad testificandum, subpoena duces tecum)
> > > right to attorney
>
> > > What part of it piques your curiosity? ?Or is it the whole damn thing?
>
> > > AMENDMENT VI.
> > > Right to speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
> > > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
> > > speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
> > > district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
> > > shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
> > > the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
> > > witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
> > > witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
> > > defence.
>
> > > Now, Robbie, don't be sending me off another one of those wild goose
> > > chases.
> > > We're talking about whether there is a god, and btw the brains who
> > > drafted the 6th did not believe in a god, at least not in an
> > > intervenor who paid any attention to the affairs of humanity.
>
> > The part that says in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a
> > right to trial by jury. Lawyers claim this means that in most
> > criminal prosecutions, the accused has no such right.
>
> Of course, the law is what the judges say it is. Our government can
> at pleasure change the definition of "criminal prosecution." See, for
> example, where Justice O'Connor says the feds and states don't need a
> jury for petty offenses:
>
Courts and judges are not the Supreme Law of the United States. The
Constitution is. If people do not understand the English language,
they would do better to not become lawyers and judges.
Robert B. Winn
 

Similar threads

R
NO EVIDENCE OF ANY GODS
Replies
5
Views
18
Richo
R
B
A CHALLENGE FOR RELIGIONISTS
Replies
6
Views
18
Steve Hayes
S
B
FALSE GODS
2 3
Replies
55
Views
56
bob young
B
B
EVIDENCE OF NO REAL GOD
Replies
4
Views
21
Christopher A.Lee
C
B
GOD MYTHS AND FABLES
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
71
bob young
B
Back
Top