NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

On Feb 21, 9:25 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.
>
> > "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


Good thing we are free to choose for ourselves what we believe, Dan.
Robert B. Winn
 
On 21 Feb 2007 16:10:30 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172103030.774994.92810@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
>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

Excuse me if I don't accept your claim without any evidence.
 
On 21 Feb 2007 16:14:55 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172103294.978172.316170@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>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

So you assert.
 
bob young said:
rbwinn 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

Where WOULD yuo people be without your old book of fables and myths.

Does it never filter through to your brains and past your eye blinkers
[blinders] that is exactly what they are?

Here's a few other man inspired and produced books:

Baha'i Sacrid writings

Life of Buddha - Dhammapada - Pali cannon

The Book of Mormon - Church of Latter Day Saints

The Analects - Confuscianism

The Eddas and Sagas - Icelandic beliefs

Wicca - Neo paganism of Greece and Rome over the centuries

Bhagavgita and Rig Veda - Hinduism

Qur'an - Islam

Adi Granth and Dasam Granth - canonical scripture of the Sikhs

The Tanakh - Jewism

Tao-Te-Ching - Taoism

Nag Hammadi - Gnostics

Zhuan Falun - Falun Gong



[Guess these must all be books of myths and fables Eh?]
Click to expand...

All written BY MEN ABOUT philosophies. All Subjective to these men's experiences and foundational beliefs. ALL FABLES AND MYTHS, STORIES AND LECTURES written by men to guide, comfort, explain the unknown and encouage people.
 
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:25:22 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>"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.

Not a Christian group.

> Even where there is no belief
>system or nothing nothing in common with the majority of
>Christians.

They follow Jesus - that, and the fact that they claim to be Christian
makes them Christian. You certainly aren't the one appointed to
decide who's Christian and who isn't.

>> > 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?

The Church of Latter Day Saints is a Christian Church. But Christians
don't judge others, so where's your evidence that YOU'RE 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.

That's not only a wild distortion of LDS beliefs, it's bearing false
witness, which a Christian wouldn't do.
 
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:42:10 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>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 same water can't exist in all 3 states at the same time - the
Christian god is supposed to.

>The Mormon Christ was born in Jerusalem, the Christian God was
>born in Bethlehem.

Which didn't exist until LONG after Jesus died. It was a cemetery
when he was supposedly born, and no Jews would live in, or next to, a
cemetery.

> Two diffeent cities, according the two Bibles
>ie the Christian Bible and the Mormon Bible (the Book of Mormon)

And the independent objective evidence that the Christian Bible is
correct is???

>> 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?

He can read history. Christians have been killing Christians for
2,000 years.
 
On Feb 21, 3:45�am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2007 02:40:02 -0600, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
> wrote:
>
 
On Feb 21, 10:36�am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 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.
 
On Feb 21, 5:40�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2007 16:10:30 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172103030.774994.92...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >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.
 
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1172103394.668478.105500@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 21, 9:25 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.
> >
> > > "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
>
>
> Good thing we are free to choose for ourselves what we believe, Dan.
> Robert B. Winn
>
Yes, nevertheless, the practice of polygamy places these Mormon
offshoots outside the Christian fold. Perhaps they are right, I'm not
the one to say.

Dr. Wood, DDS
 
rbwinn wrote:

> 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

What do you feel about the Koran Robbie?
 
On 21 Feb 2007 19:46:34 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172115994.713772.83880@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 21, 5:40?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2007 16:10:30 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1172103030.774994.92...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >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. /u 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? 2 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. awyers 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. n which case if you
>> >> are convicted the judge will punish you by a sentence much harsher
>> >> than that of the court below. 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. hat, imho, is
>> >> unconstitutional, a violation of the 6th Amendment. 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
>>
>> Excuse me if I don't accept your claim without any evidence.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Do whatever you want to do. A United States citizen cannot go into
>court and ask for a trial by jury and get it the way the Constitution
>guarantees. The reason for that is that lawyers have set themselves
>up as an elite class who decide what rights the rest of us have.
>There are some of us non-lawyers who say that lawyers cannot take away
>our rights even if they deny them.
>Robert B. Winn

So you assert. I have no reason to accept your claim. None.

I would guess that your lawyer told you that you would be an idiot to
ask for a jury trial, but that's a separate question.
 
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dpspt2psl16pe3u967lm8clsfauv951lvf@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:25:22 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"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.
>
> Not a Christian group.
>
> > Even where there is no belief
> >system or nothing nothing in common with the majority of
> >Christians.
>
> They follow Jesus - that, and the fact that they claim to be Christian
> makes them Christian. You certainly aren't the one appointed to
> decide who's Christian and who isn't.
>
You are right, all I can say is that pologamy places them outside
the Triditional Christian fold. Perhaps they are right everyone
else is wrong. I am not the one to say.
>
> >> > 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?
>
> The Church of Latter Day Saints is a Christian Church.
>
This is _not_ about the LDS, but rather the polygamous offshoots.
The Utah LDS Church condemns the practice of polygamy as well.

But Christians don't judge others, so where's your evidence that
YOU'RE Christian?
>
Check my post, where have I made any such claim? I am a member
of th Masonic Lodge that is as close to a religious organization as I get.
>
> >> > 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.
>
> That's not only a wild distortion of LDS beliefs, it's bearing false
> witness, which a Christian wouldn't do.
>
Again this is about LDS offshoots.

Dan Wood
 
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:8mtpt2po57hlr9udcaoh7sdugsdsu3885r@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:42:10 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >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 same water can't exist in all 3 states at the same time - the
> Christian god is supposed to.
>
A melting glacier is ice with water running off and water vapors
escaping into the atmosphere. This I've seen.
>
> >The Mormon Christ was born in Jerusalem, the Christian God was
> >born in Bethlehem.
>
> Which didn't exist until LONG after Jesus died. It was a cemetery
> when he was supposedly born, and no Jews would live in, or next to, a
> cemetery.
>
>
> > Two diffeent cities, according the two Bibles
> >ie the Christian Bible and the Mormon Bible (the Book of Mormon)
>
> And the independent objective evidence that the Christian Bible is
> correct is???
>
Whether it is or not, is another issue. But the two scripture differ
on the birthplace of the two Christs.
>
> >> 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?
>
> He can read history. Christians have been killing Christians for
> 2,000 years.
>
You live in the past, I live in the present. I look around, I do not
see Methodist, Baptist Lutherans, Presbyterians or Catholics killing
each other.

Dr. Wood, DDS
 
On Feb 21, 9:38�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > 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.
 
On Feb 21, 9:39�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2007 19:46:34 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172115994.713772.83...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 21, 5:40?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 21 Feb 2007 16:10:30 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> <1172103030.774994.92...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >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. /u 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? 2 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.
 
On 21 Feb 2007 22:38:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <45DD1DD8.CF4A9391@netvigator.com>
>
>
>rbwinn wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>What do you feel about the Koran Robbie?

He hasn't read that, either.

--
 
rbwinn wrote:

> On Feb 21, 9:38�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > 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.
 
rbwinn wrote:

> On Feb 21, 9:39�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On 21 Feb 2007 19:46:34 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > <1172115994.713772.83...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Feb 21, 5:40?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > >> On 21 Feb 2007 16:10:30 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > >> <1172103030.774994.92...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > >> >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. /u 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? 2 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.
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:e2dkt2tov0701orpfmvmtnl208e7ocdi9u@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:53:25 +0800, in alt.atheism
> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> <45d9c68a$0$16269$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>"Paul Ransom Erickson" <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:u4qft2ppbprus69bal5qdcjtjptkp7inf6@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:51:58 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
>>> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:35:48 +0800, in alt.atheism
>>>>"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>>>><45d6f3c4$0$16389$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>>>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>>>>news:021at2dduc81elh421vfel0tr3he94oqc0@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On 15 Feb 2007 04:31:43 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
>>>>>> <1171542703.680913.131700@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, Thomas, here we see the last refuge of the atheist, the
>>>>>>>personal
>>>>>>>attack. We were discussing the Bible here in alt.bible. Now
>>>>>>>everyone
>>>>>>>can see your purpose in intruding in our conversation. If you do not
>>>>>>>want to talk about the Bible, why don't you go live the happy life of
>>>>>>>an atheist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm in alt.atheism watching you tell your lies. Why are you posting
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> lies in alt.atheism.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Because a.a. is ABOUT atheism, not a refuge FOR atheists. Also,
>>>>> atheist
>>>>>doctrine demands, that what we consider the truth, atheists MUST call
>>>>>lies
>>>>>or face excommunication and confiscation of their number.
>>>>
>>>>As people have pointed out again and again, yet you, in your hubris
>>>>refuse to acknowledge, there is no such thing as atheist doctrine.
>>>>
>>>>It appears that you hate people.
>>>
>>> Indeed. He spends a lot of time on alt.atheism telling us how awful
>>> he thinks we are.
>>>
>> Non sequitur to what I wrote. My comments concerned atheism as a
>>philosophy of life, not atheists as persons. But then atheism requires
>>atheists to ALWAYS emphasis faults, errors, shortcomings, insufficiencies
>>etc. to the exclusion of affirming what is good, right, desirable, and
>>salutary.
>> That is what hell is all about, all negative and despairing and
>> nothing
>>positive and hopeful. And that is also why Christ came to bring us the
>>Good
>>News.
>
> As you know, atheism is not a philosophy of life.
> You choose to lie about it. Why is that?
> Is your god so pitifully weak that he needs your help? Does he fail if
> no one lies for him?
>
Our Christian "God is love" and there is nothing "pitiful" about love.
Nor does love "lie". If atheism is not a philosophy of life, then why are
you wasting your life arguing against our philosophy of life, unless you
think your philosophy of life is better?
You just got yourself all muddled again.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 

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