NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

On 24 Feb 2007 06:34:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172327646.751362.102810@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 24, 6:49?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:02:16 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 23, 7:09?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> >> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:53:52 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 19, 8:18?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
>> >> >> > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > rbwinn wrote:
>> >> >> > > > On Feb 14, 4:44?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. )ncoln said on
>> >> >> > > > > >several occasions that he believed the Bible.
>>
>> >> >> > > > > Source with complete context please.
>>
>> >> >> > > > I can give you the original source. !lk to Abraham Lincoln after the
>> >> >> > > > resurrection. % can tell you in person.
>> >> >> > > > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> >> > > I am seriously thinking of <plonking> you for the third time - what a
>> >> >> > > wally- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> > Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. / need to get irrational.
>> >> >> > Isaiah 2:17
>>
>> >> nd the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the
>>
>> >> >> > haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall be
>> >> >> > exalted in that day.
>> >> >> > /bert B. Winn
>>
>> >> >> Nothing could be MORE irrational than quoting ad infinitum,
>> >> >> verses from an old book written by one primitive out of a gaggle of
>> >> >> primitives
>>
>> >> >> Grow up- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >How about this? Here is someone who thinks that his ancestors were
>> >> >monkeys telling me to grow up.
>>
>> >> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>> >> Every time a creationist says something like "you believe your
>> >> ancestors were monkeys", the creationist is exposed as the dumbest
>> >> ****ing person on the planet.
>> >Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.
>>
>> Crying about "profanity" is the last resort of one who has no
>> argument to begin with, and merely demonstrates the lack of
>> intelligence on the part of the complainer.
>>
>> Don
>
>If you want to use profanity, go use it on someone else. It does not
>impress me. All it says is that you want to discontinue the
>conversation. So go ahead and discontinue it.

Why don't you learn the difference between profanity, which was not
used, and vulgarity, which was, before you whine some more.
 
On 24 Feb 2007 06:26:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172327214.029352.172230@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 23, 11:02?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>> > On Feb 22, 9:44?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> > > rbwinn wrote:
>> > > > On Feb 15, 9:08?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> > > > > rbwinn wrote:
>> > > > > > On Feb 15, 6:46?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>> > > > > > > On 15 Feb., 13:22, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:> On Feb 15, 2:17?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On 15 Feb., 00:29, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:34?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > snip
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > Well, Bob, does the Bible exist or not? ?You say whether it exists.
>> > > > > > > > > > Don't try to call me a liar just because I called your bluff.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > You are a liar. ?You said that I and others claimed the Bible did not
>> > > > > > > > > exist. ?Not only was that a lie, it was incredibly silly. ?You called
>> > > > > > > > > nobody's bluff; you just told a silly lie.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > > > You are still claiming that the Bible does not exist. If I ask you
>> > > > > > > > about Isaiah's account of the Assyrian invasion of Judea, you reply
>> > > > > > > > with an inane question about fictional characters. o, the
>> > > > > > > > conversation is over. ou are claiming that the Bible does not exist.
>>
>> > > > > > > Little Bobby is such a pathetic twit, but we should be nice to him; he
>> > > > > > > does such good work for atheism.
>>
>> > > > > > Your personal attacks show everyone who you work for.
>> > > > > > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> > > > > These - wizards, satans, evil spirits, $evils, lucifers, ghouls, diabolous, Auld Hornies, Fiends, Old Nicks etc., $o
>> > > > > not exist ...........any more than your god exists.
>>
>> > > > > They, along with your god, were all manufactured by fearful humans long before you were borne Robert - get used to it- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > Well, the most common lie told by Satan is that the devil does not
>> > > > exist.
>> > > > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> > > Seen him have you? 9ou really do need help- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Why would a person who has seen Satan need help?
>>
>> You are a moat dishonest person. 4he question was whether you have seen him.
>>
>> Deviating again, because your god is nothing
>>
>Well, the problem with telling a person like you what I have seen or
>not seen is that you would use it in a dishonest way. It is none of
>your business what I have seen or not seen.

So you are just making unsupportable claims.
 
On 24 Feb 2007 06:21:40 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172326900.708340.78700@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 23, 9:09?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 23 Feb 2007 18:27:40 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1172284059.970326.74...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:

....

>> >Well, if you say Satan does not exist, you are speaking for Satan. f
>> >that is not following Satan, what is it?
>>
>> What tendentious nonsense. You don't get to make an assertion that you
>> have absolutely no evidence to support and then claim that all who
>> disagree with you are supporting your imaginary invention.
>>
>> When you provide evidence that Satan exists, then I will believe you,
>> until then, I will conclude that are you are incapable of either telling
>> the truth or knowing the truth.- Hide quoted text -
>
>There is no way to provide you with evidence of anything because you
>have already closed your mind toward all evidence.

That is not a valid claim, since I have never rejected any evidence that
you have offered. I cannot reject evidence if you never offer any and
you have not.

>What you are saying in this context is that evil does not exist.

What hogwash. I never said any such thing. It takes a truly deluded
person to make that claim.

>If you want to
>believe that evil does not exist, you are free to have that belief.

Once again, I do not hold that belief and I have never made any
statement to that effect. You are lying, again.

>It does not mean anything to me if you believe evil does not exist.

Why do you have to lie so often? What causes you to do this? Certainly
there is nothing in LDS doctrine that teaches you to lie like this.
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:7pfvt2d8vsctsvjk4bh473qjs3scf0b75h@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:14:33 -0500, in alt.atheism
> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in <xYODh.16618$z6.15765@bigfe9>:
> >
> >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >news:cfest2p1kpupctn0o33omhrcbaqon5p0a7@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:49:45 -0500, in alt.atheism
> >> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> >> <Bh9Dh.38628$19.29310@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
> >> >
> >> >"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
> >> >
> >> Not today, not publicly. Why, I'm sure it's been weeks since the good
> >> Christians in the KKK have murdered anyone.
> >
> >Cite or do I just take the word of some who hates Christians?
>
> Once again, a supposed Christian lies in this newsgroup.
>
Whoever claimed that christians in the KKK murdered anyone in the
past few weeks are lying. I question that there are any Christians in
the KKK. The KKK is almost extinct.
>
Why does that
> happen? You cannot show anywhere that I hate Christians as a group.
>
It doesn't apply to you? Good! I seriously doubt you have ever personally
witnessed a cross burning or a KKK march in your entire life. You
mentioned good christians in the KKK killing people, I would bet
you have _never_ personally witnessed any such event yourself.
Neither have I and I live in the South. KKK lynching is a thing of the past.
>
> Sure, I hate people who call themselves Christian and then act in ways
> that are completely contrary to Jesus's teachings. Sure, there are still
> racists out there who claim to be Christian but have joined hate groups.
> Even you can recognize that the history of Christianity includes murders
> supposedly done in the name of God. What changed the "good Christians"
> who decided to engage in a war with the United States rather than give
> up their right to enslave other people?
>
Slavery was only one of several issues involved in the Civil War. The direct
cause of the war was the secession of several Southern States beginning
with S. Carolina. This war was fought to preserve the Union. Slavery was
_not_ illegal at the time of the secession. Slavery was injected as a cause
later in order to give the war a moral basis. President Lincoln Emancipation
Proclamation was a propaganda move, since it applied only to the South
where it had no relevance. Neither did it apply to the Union states such
as Maryland, Delaware, Missouri etc. Slavery was not illegal until Dec.,
1865. Slavery was not limited to the South: all of the colonies had slavery.
during colonial days.
>
What changed their children and
> grandchildren and great-grandchildren who were murdering the descendents
> of the slaves and and getting away with it? When did Christians stop
> murdering other Christians and justifying their murders?
>
This is just propaganda. Christians cease to be Christian when they
willfully and deliberately commit sin, according to everything I ever
heard. Murder is definably sin. My Mother was a dedicated Christian.
She would never commit not rationalize murder.

Dan Wood, DDS
 
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:29:23 -0500, in alt.atheism
"Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<HB_Dh.10862$e8.6438@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
>
>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:7pfvt2d8vsctsvjk4bh473qjs3scf0b75h@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:14:33 -0500, in alt.atheism
>> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in <xYODh.16618$z6.15765@bigfe9>:
>> >
>> >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>> >news:cfest2p1kpupctn0o33omhrcbaqon5p0a7@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:49:45 -0500, in alt.atheism
>> >> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> >> <Bh9Dh.38628$19.29310@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
>> >> >
>> >> >"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
>> >> >
>> >> Not today, not publicly. Why, I'm sure it's been weeks since the good
>> >> Christians in the KKK have murdered anyone.
>> >
>> >Cite or do I just take the word of some who hates Christians?
>>
>> Once again, a supposed Christian lies in this newsgroup.
>>
>Whoever claimed that christians in the KKK murdered anyone in the
>past few weeks are lying. I question that there are any Christians in
>the KKK. The KKK is almost extinct.

Everyone in the KKK claimed to be Christian.

>> Why does that happen? You cannot show anywhere that I hate Christians as a group.
>>
>It doesn't apply to you? Good! I seriously doubt you have ever personally
>witnessed a cross burning or a KKK march in your entire life. You
>mentioned good christians in the KKK killing people, I would bet
>you have _never_ personally witnessed any such event yourself.
>Neither have I and I live in the South. KKK lynching is a thing of the past.

That is good. I hope that is true, except we know that people justify
their attacks on abortion clinics, murders of doctors and murders of
gays with their supposed Christianity. Some Christians rightly condemn
such vile acts, but others claim that the victims are condemned by God
and, essentially, condone such attacks and murders.

>> Sure, I hate people who call themselves Christian and then act in ways
>> that are completely contrary to Jesus's teachings. Sure, there are still
>> racists out there who claim to be Christian but have joined hate groups.
>> Even you can recognize that the history of Christianity includes murders
>> supposedly done in the name of God. What changed the "good Christians"
>> who decided to engage in a war with the United States rather than give
>> up their right to enslave other people?
>>
>Slavery was only one of several issues involved in the Civil War. The direct
>cause of the war was the secession of several Southern States beginning
>with S. Carolina. This war was fought to preserve the Union. Slavery was
>_not_ illegal at the time of the secession. Slavery was injected as a cause
>later in order to give the war a moral basis. President Lincoln Emancipation
>Proclamation was a propaganda move, since it applied only to the South
>where it had no relevance. Neither did it apply to the Union states such
>as Maryland, Delaware, Missouri etc. Slavery was not illegal until Dec.,
>1865. Slavery was not limited to the South: all of the colonies had slavery.
>during colonial days.

I understand that, but the Southern Baptist Convention, among other
slavery-friendly institutions, intentionally broke from their other
American Baptist fellows because they wanted to defend slavery. They
claimed that it was just fine to own a slave and kill it. Those were the
kinds of people who broke away from the Union and attacked the Union.

>> What changed their children and
>> grandchildren and great-grandchildren who were murdering the descendents
>> of the slaves and and getting away with it? When did Christians stop
>> murdering other Christians and justifying their murders?
>>
>This is just propaganda. Christians cease to be Christian when they
>willfully and deliberately commit sin, according to everything I ever
>heard. Murder is definably sin. My Mother was a dedicated Christian.
>She would never commit not rationalize murder.

No, it isn't. The slaveholders thought that murdering their slaves was
just fine, they liked it so much that they changed the law to make
certain that it wasn't called murder. After the revolt of the
slaveholders was put down, the intellectual and spiritual heirs of the
slaveholders still went around murdering blacks. Even though those
murders were indeed technically crimes, no one bothered to do anything
about it. As far as I can tell, using your criteria, there were no
Christians in the South until the laws against murdering blacks started
to be enforced. That seems to be sometime after 1964.
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Saturday 24 February 2007 1:34
am Michael Gray perhaps from mikegray@newsguy.com wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:34:28 -0500, Darrell Stec
> <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
> - Refer: <549pvqF1vgjuhU1@mid.individual.net>
>>After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 9:59
>>pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 23, 12:49?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007
>>>> 7:38 am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Feb 22, 10:22?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >> rbwinn wrote:
>>>> >> > On Feb 16, 7:10?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>> >> > > On 16 Feb 2007 17:53:22 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>> >> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>>>> >> > > <1171677202.265303.67...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>>>>
>>>> >> > > >On Feb 16, 5:52?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>
>>>> >> > > >wrote:
>>>> >> > > >> On 16 Feb., 13:17, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:> On
>>>> >> > > >> Feb 13, 6:31?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>
>>>> >> > > >> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> > > >> > > On 13 Feb., 14:03, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> > > >> > > > On Feb 12, 9:21?pm, bob young
>>>> >> > > >> > > > <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> > > >> snip
>>>>
>>>> >> > > >> > > What we do not have is any evidence of any miracle.-
>>>> >> > > >> > > Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> >> > > >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> >> > > >> > Well, if you had been one of the people in Jerusalem at
>>>> >> > > >> > thattime, you might have seen it a little differently.
>>>> >> > > >> > ??t did not seem like a miracle to Sennacherrib after
>>>> >> > > >> > he arrived home in Ninevah safe and sound, but when it
>>>> >> > > >> > happened, he was not so sure. Robert B. Winn- Skjul
>>>> >> > > >> > tekst i anf?stegn -
>>>>
>>>> >> > > >> Sorry boobie but your fantasies about what happened or
>>>> >> > > >> what people thought back then are not evidence.
>>>>
>>>> >> > > >Well, why don't we go right to what Isaiah wrote, Thomas?
>>>> >> > > >Isaiah 1:20 ??But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be
>>>> >> > > >devoured with the sword, for the mouth of the Lord hath
>>>> >> > > >spoken it.
>>>>
>>>> >> > > And you arrogantly think that you are the one to interpret
>>>> >> > > it and apply it here.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> >> > I did not interpret anything. ??I just quoted the scripture
>>>> >> > the way it was written.
>>>> >> > Robert B. Winn
>>>>
>>>> >> you mean
>>>> >> 'how the last translator conceptualized the previous
>>>> >> translator's work, don't you?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> > You do not know a lot about the Jews, do you? ??They prided
>>>> > themselves on not changing scripture. ??
>>>>
>>>> There goes that arrogance again. ??Why do you pontificate upon that
>>>> which you know little to nothing? ??Do you know how may different
>>>> versions of the Hebrew bible there were? ??In each of those, some
>>>> verses were deleted, some verses were added and words were outright
>>>> changed and that doesn't even begin to address all the various
>>>> misspellings and scribal errors. ??Even the link I provided show
>>>> that in the book of Isaiah alone there were 40,000 differences
>>>> between the Hebrew Great Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
>>>> the Masoretic Text. ??And ther were even more among the other
>>>> Hebrew texts of Isaiah found in the DDS. And we haven't even begun
>>>> to examine the Samaritan Hebrew bible. ??To complicate matters
>>>> further scholars know that there were at least three different
>>>> versions of the Greek Old Testament (only one of which survives
>>>> today).
>>>>
>>>> But because you are ignorant of the Hebrew and Greek you cannot see
>>>> that for yourself and cannot follow the conversations of the Jewish
>>>> scholar who showed the differences letter by letter in the link
>>>> which I provided.
>>>>
>>>> > They were not always successful, but they
>>>> > had no overriding motive to change meanings the way atheists of
>>>> > today have.
>>>>
>>>> Of course they did. ??There was no one, single, unifying Jewish
>>>> movement throughout the whole of history. ??There were many Jewish
>>>> philosophies throughout history and Christianity developed from one
>>>> of them. ??Each had a motive for changing scripture.
>>>>
>>>> But even more to the point, you are not discussing the Hebrew bible
>>>> because by your own admission you are not equipted to do that.
>>>> ??Rather you are discussing an interpretation and translation of
>>>> the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. ??And to make matters worse, the
>>>> translation you use and worship was developed from very, very late
>>>> Hebrew and Greek manuscripts including two which were only
>>>> completed a decade before that translation was made and the Hebrew
>>>> version which was only 400 years old.
>>>>
>>>> You have no ammunition for this discussion. ??Even more to your
>>>> discredit, you do not even have a gun to fire it from. ??And upon
>>>> further consideration -- not even the arms to use the gun. ??You
>>>> are handicapped in any discussion of biblical scholarship, and that
>>>> comes from your own admissions.
>>>>
>>>> > Robert B. Winn
>>>>
>>> Well, what you say only proves me correct. If the book of Isaiah
>>> has gone through all you say it has and still has the pattern of
>>> language in English that proves it was all written by Isaiah, then
>>> what are you
>>> talking about? There is a pattern in the structure of what Isaiah
>>> wrote that identifies all of his writings.
>>> When college professors claim that at least four people wrote the
>>> book, or when atheists claim that there were schools of people
>>> manufacturing the book, they are only showing their ignorance. No
>>> one else writes the way Isaiah writes.
>>> Robert B. Winn
>>
>>How would you know? You can't read Hebrew. A translation from Hebrew
>>to English will not bring out the finer points of syntax, grammer
>>usage, anachronisms, nor word usage.
>
> And from what I can gather, he is reading from the most egregious
> translation available to the English reader.
>
> --

Yup, and I explained why in a post several days ago. To make matters
worse he isn't using the original which at least had a preface that
said the translation was not inerrant because no translation could
accurately convey the meaning especially on some ancient words for
which we have no meaning. Those translators attempted to be somewhat
accurate within the bounds of their biased theology and the pressures
of the king. I think the most ironic thing was that the Erasmus Greek
version which they used for their "original" was highly influenced by
the Roman Catholic Church and the Latin Vulgate and that translation
wasn't even a century old. Had they waited a year more they would have
had a much better Greek translation from which to work. Still not as
good as what we have available.

Years and years and years ago, I used to sell books and magazines door
to door. Among them were bibles too. Boy do I have a collection of
stories about that.

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Saturday 24 February 2007 1:23
am bob young perhaps from alaspectrum@netvigator.com wrote:

>
>
> Darrell Stec wrote:
>
>> After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 9:59
>> pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 23, 12:49?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007
>> >> 7:38 am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On Feb 22, 10:22?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
>> >> >> > On Feb 16, 7:10?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> > > On 16 Feb 2007 17:53:22 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> >> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> >> > > <1171677202.265303.67...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >> > > >On Feb 16, 5:52?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>
>> >> >> > > >wrote:
>> >> >> > > >> On 16 Feb., 13:17, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:>
>> >> >> > > >> On Feb 13, 6:31?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>
>> >> >> > > >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > > >> > > On 13 Feb., 14:03, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com>
>> >> >> > > >> > > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > > >> > > > On Feb 12, 9:21?pm, bob young
>> >> >> > > >> > > > <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > > >> snip
>> >>
>> >> >> > > >> > > What we do not have is any evidence of any miracle.-
>> >> >> > > >> > > Hide quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> >> > > >> > > - Show quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> >> > > >> > Well, if you had been one of the people in Jerusalem
>> >> >> > > >> > at thattime, you might have seen it a little
>> >> >> > > >> > differently. ??t did not seem like a miracle to
>> >> >> > > >> > Sennacherrib after he arrived home in Ninevah safe and
>> >> >> > > >> > sound, but when it happened, he was not so sure.
>> >> >> > > >> > Robert B. Winn- Skjul tekst i anf?stegn -
>> >>
>> >> >> > > >> Sorry boobie but your fantasies about what happened or
>> >> >> > > >> what people thought back then are not evidence.
>> >>
>> >> >> > > >Well, why don't we go right to what Isaiah wrote, Thomas?
>> >> >> > > >Isaiah 1:20 ??But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be
>> >> >> > > >devoured with the sword, for the mouth of the Lord hath
>> >> >> > > >spoken it.
>> >>
>> >> >> > > And you arrogantly think that you are the one to interpret
>> >> >> > > it and apply it here.- Hide quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> >> > I did not interpret anything. ??I just quoted the scripture
>> >> >> > the way it was written.
>> >> >> > Robert B. Winn
>> >>
>> >> >> you mean
>> >> >> 'how the last translator conceptualized the previous
>> >> >> translator's work, don't you?- Hide quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> > You do not know a lot about the Jews, do you? ??They prided
>> >> > themselves on not changing scripture. ??
>> >>
>> >> There goes that arrogance again. ??Why do you pontificate upon
>> >> that which you know little to nothing? ??Do you know how may
>> >> different versions of the Hebrew bible there were? ??In each of
>> >> those, some verses were deleted, some verses were added and words
>> >> were outright changed and that doesn't even begin to address all
>> >> the various misspellings and scribal errors. ??Even the link I
>> >> provided show that in the book of Isaiah alone there were 40,000
>> >> differences between the Hebrew Great Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea
>> >> Scrolls and the Masoretic Text. ??And ther were even more among
>> >> the other Hebrew texts of Isaiah found in the DDS. And we haven't
>> >> even begun to examine the Samaritan Hebrew bible. ??To complicate
>> >> matters further scholars know that there were at least three
>> >> different versions of the Greek Old Testament (only one of which
>> >> survives today).
>> >>
>> >> But because you are ignorant of the Hebrew and Greek you cannot
>> >> see that for yourself and cannot follow the conversations of the
>> >> Jewish scholar who showed the differences letter by letter in the
>> >> link which I provided.
>> >>
>> >> > They were not always successful, but they
>> >> > had no overriding motive to change meanings the way atheists of
>> >> > today have.
>> >>
>> >> Of course they did. ??There was no one, single, unifying Jewish
>> >> movement throughout the whole of history. ??There were many Jewish
>> >> philosophies throughout history and Christianity developed from
>> >> one of them. ??Each had a motive for changing scripture.
>> >>
>> >> But even more to the point, you are not discussing the Hebrew
>> >> bible because by your own admission you are not equipted to do
>> >> that. ??Rather you are discussing an interpretation and
>> >> translation of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. ??And to make
>> >> matters worse, the translation you use and worship was developed
>> >> from very, very late Hebrew and Greek manuscripts including two
>> >> which were only completed a decade before that translation was
>> >> made and the Hebrew version which was only 400 years old.
>> >>
>> >> You have no ammunition for this discussion. ??Even more to your
>> >> discredit, you do not even have a gun to fire it from. ??And upon
>> >> further consideration -- not even the arms to use the gun. ??You
>> >> are handicapped in any discussion of biblical scholarship, and
>> >> that comes from your own admissions.
>> >>
>> >> > Robert B. Winn
>> >>
>> > Well, what you say only proves me correct. If the book of Isaiah
>> > has gone through all you say it has and still has the pattern of
>> > language in English that proves it was all written by Isaiah, then
>> > what are you
>> > talking about? There is a pattern in the structure of what Isaiah
>> > wrote that identifies all of his writings.
>> > When college professors claim that at least four people wrote the
>> > book, or when atheists claim that there were schools of people
>> > manufacturing the book, they are only showing their ignorance. No
>> > one else writes the way Isaiah writes.
>> > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> How would you know? You can't read Hebrew. A translation from
>> Hebrew to English will not bring out the finer points of syntax,
>> grammer usage, anachronisms, nor word usage.
>
> I have just told the arrogant little ******* that his posts now go
> unread by me -
>
> It should be like a breath of fresh air from now on
>

I'm right about at that stage now too. I do think he needs some serious
mental help (but then what do I know, I only use to teach college
psychology).

>>
>>
>> --
>> Later,
>> Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com
>>
>> Webpage Sorcery
>> http://webpagesorcery.com
>> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:47:46 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
- Refer: <5fg0u2lq7hqp5g0gt3dne2c34hktib1fdg@4ax.com>
>In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:04:58 -0800, "rbwinn"
><rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
>>On Feb 23, 7:10?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>>> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:31:53 -0800, "rbwinn"
>>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Feb 18, 10:09?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>> >> rbwinn wrote:
>>> >> > 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...
>>> >> > So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys,
>>> >> > you claim that he was telling a "yarn"?
>>> >> > Robert B. Winn
>>>
>>> >> IDIOT there is nothing to show your Jesus said anything other than what other
>>> >> foolish humans like you have claimed
>>>
>>> >> Grow up- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> >Well, here we have another statement from an atheist denying the
>>> >existence of the Bible.
>>>
>>> No, that's not what we have. We only have that if you, Bobby,
>>> do not understand English. Are you admitting that you do not
>>> understand English?
>
>>You first, Don.
>
> Oh please, Bobby. IKYABWAI is so kindergarten.

He has been caught lying again, knows it, but doesn't have the balls
to admit it.
So, like most true Christians, he lies, cheats, and defrauds to get
"his way".

--
 
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:22:02 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
- Refer: <2gp0u2t4so5tffncsre4jniec3mgle9mmn@4ax.com>
>On 24 Feb 2007 06:34:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
>"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
><1172327646.751362.102810@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>:
>>On Feb 24, 6:49?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>>> In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:02:16 -0800, "rbwinn"
>>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Feb 23, 7:09?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>>> >> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:53:52 -0800, "rbwinn"
>>> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>>
>>> >> >On Feb 19, 8:18?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
>>> >> >> > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> > > rbwinn wrote:
>>> >> >> > > > On Feb 14, 4:44?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. )ncoln said on
>>> >> >> > > > > >several occasions that he believed the Bible.
>>>
>>> >> >> > > > > Source with complete context please.
>>>
>>> >> >> > > > I can give you the original source. !lk to Abraham Lincoln after the
>>> >> >> > > > resurrection. % can tell you in person.
>>> >> >> > > > Robert B. Winn
>>>
>>> >> >> > > I am seriously thinking of <plonking> you for the third time - what a
>>> >> >> > > wally- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> >> >> > Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. / need to get irrational.
>>> >> >> > Isaiah 2:17
>>>
>>> >> nd the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the
>>>
>>> >> >> > haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall be
>>> >> >> > exalted in that day.
>>> >> >> > /bert B. Winn
>>>
>>> >> >> Nothing could be MORE irrational than quoting ad infinitum,
>>> >> >> verses from an old book written by one primitive out of a gaggle of
>>> >> >> primitives
>>>
>>> >> >> Grow up- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> >> >How about this? Here is someone who thinks that his ancestors were
>>> >> >monkeys telling me to grow up.
>>>
>>> >> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>>
>>> >> Every time a creationist says something like "you believe your
>>> >> ancestors were monkeys", the creationist is exposed as the dumbest
>>> >> ****ing person on the planet.
>>> >Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.
>>>
>>> Crying about "profanity" is the last resort of one who has no
>>> argument to begin with, and merely demonstrates the lack of
>>> intelligence on the part of the complainer.
>>>
>>> Don
>>
>>If you want to use profanity, go use it on someone else. It does not
>>impress me. All it says is that you want to discontinue the
>>conversation. So go ahead and discontinue it.
>
>Why don't you learn the difference between profanity, which was not
>used, and vulgarity, which was, before you whine some more.

Hey yeah, that would make a great stalling tactic.
I bet he actually folows your advice this once!

--
 
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:22:37 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
- Refer: <rhp0u2tkecj62dap0cnp9240cisu886urj@4ax.com>
>On 24 Feb 2007 06:26:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
>"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
><1172327214.029352.172230@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>>On Feb 23, 11:02?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> > On Feb 22, 9:44?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>> > > rbwinn wrote:
>>> > > > On Feb 15, 9:08?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > rbwinn wrote:
>>> > > > > > On Feb 15, 6:46?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>>> > > > > > > On 15 Feb., 13:22, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:> On Feb 15, 2:17?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > > > > > > > On 15 Feb., 00:29, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:34?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > > > > > snip
>>>
>>> > > > > > > > > > Well, Bob, does the Bible exist or not? ?You say whether it exists.
>>> > > > > > > > > > Don't try to call me a liar just because I called your bluff.
>>>
>>> > > > > > > > > You are a liar. ?You said that I and others claimed the Bible did not
>>> > > > > > > > > exist. ?Not only was that a lie, it was incredibly silly. ?You called
>>> > > > > > > > > nobody's bluff; you just told a silly lie.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> > > > > > > > You are still claiming that the Bible does not exist. If I ask you
>>> > > > > > > > about Isaiah's account of the Assyrian invasion of Judea, you reply
>>> > > > > > > > with an inane question about fictional characters. o, the
>>> > > > > > > > conversation is over. ou are claiming that the Bible does not exist.
>>>
>>> > > > > > > Little Bobby is such a pathetic twit, but we should be nice to him; he
>>> > > > > > > does such good work for atheism.
>>>
>>> > > > > > Your personal attacks show everyone who you work for.
>>> > > > > > Robert B. Winn
>>>
>>> > > > > These - wizards, satans, evil spirits, $evils, lucifers, ghouls, diabolous, Auld Hornies, Fiends, Old Nicks etc., $o
>>> > > > > not exist ...........any more than your god exists.
>>>
>>> > > > > They, along with your god, were all manufactured by fearful humans long before you were borne Robert - get used to it- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> > > > Well, the most common lie told by Satan is that the devil does not
>>> > > > exist.
>>> > > > Robert B. Winn
>>>
>>> > > Seen him have you? 9ou really do need help- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> > Why would a person who has seen Satan need help?
>>>
>>> You are a moat dishonest person. 4he question was whether you have seen him.
>>>
>>> Deviating again, because your god is nothing
>>>
>>Well, the problem with telling a person like you what I have seen or
>>not seen is that you would use it in a dishonest way. It is none of
>>your business what I have seen or not seen.
>
>So you are just making unsupportable claims.

No change there.

--
 
On 24 Feb 2007 04:23:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <45E011C4.6CA710C2@netvigator.com>
>
>
>Michael Gray wrote:
>
>> On 24 Feb 2007 00:18:03 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
>> wrote:
>> - Refer: <45DFD81F.528F576C@netvigator.com>
>> >
>> >
>> >Michael Gray wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 23 Feb 2007 04:54:02 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> - Refer: <45DEC75B.8B3E5B1D@netvigator.com>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Michael Gray wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 22 Feb 2007 23:18:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> - Refer: <45DE7890.EB33D1FB@netvigator.com>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Pastor Frank wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:bedkt25jc2k340fjstt9r0ftctvkun83ns@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:36:48 +0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> >> >> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>> >> >> >> > <45d8c8cc$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Thanks for proving my point. So you disbelieve what I just said, as
>> >> >> >> >>usual, and are now claiming that atheism is a belief system, instead of a
>> >> >> >> >>disbelief system. Let's see you prove that. Either prove it, or admit
>> >> >> >> >>your
>> >> >> >> >>just lying for atheism again.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > You are the one who calls atheism a belief system. I call you on your
>> >> >> >> > lie. Atheism is not a form of belief. Lack of belief is not a system.
>> >> >> >> > You know that. You appear to like lying. Why is that?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Why is what? You proved no "lie". I agreed with you above, that atheism
>> >> >> >> is not a belief system. It's however a DISbelief system, for you are forever
>> >> >> >> listing all the things you don't believe and never get around to telling us
>> >> >> >> anything about what you DO believe.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I believe that a fair proportion of religionists demonstrate constantly that
>> >> >> >they are liars and
>> >> >> >charlatans. That's what I believe
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I do NOT believe that.
>> >> >> Unless by "fair proprtion", you mean exactly 100%
>> >> >
>> >> >One must allow for the ordinary person longing for security thinking they can find
>> >> >it with an imaginary god, reinforced by following what their parents and
>> >> >grandparents believed. These are not charlatans, the charlatans are the
>> >> >propagators that lie and deceive.
>> >>
>> >> So, they do not lie when they claim that Jesus was born of a virgin?
>> >> Flew up into the sky after being tortured to death?
>> >> Came back down again and quietly chatted with a few people who never
>> >> existed, and then went back up into the sky, and will come back down
>> >> after 2,000 years?
>> >> That when a priest raves some mumbo jumbo over a biscuit and some
>> >> cheap vino, that it ACTUALLY turns into half-human flesh, and REAL
>> >> blood of ONE person?
>> >> Fot they quite simply MUST believe all this fraudulent crap to be
>> >> considered Christian.
>> >
>> >I aghree they do, but it hardly makes them inferior or bad to others, which was my
>> >point.
>>
>> My reading is that you clearly consider those people who
>> deliberately lie insanely, but are otherwise good, to be "hardly"
>> inferior to those who do good, but retain probity?
>>
>> That is where we differ, in spades!
>>
>> >It is the priets you mention who are the charlatans as they do it as a
>> >profession.
>>
>> Quite.
>> They are the ringleaders, like Fagin.
>> But that in no way relieves the "Oliver Twist" from the culpability of
>> his criminal offences, especially when most of them have an easy
>> choice:
>> Stay Christian and keep wilfully fabricating frauds, or drop the
>> Christianity, and become honest.
>> It doesn't take any change other than in one's mind, and at no
>> expense.
>>
>> No, we seem to have very different opinions on this issue.
>> They are wilfull, deliberate and conscious liars.
>
>Someone brought up in the church and brainwashed as a child, on reaching his teens is
>hardly lying about his belief, he is simply misguided, misdirected and misinformed; but
>he can still be a very nice person.

The two things are totally separate.

It is completely obvious to any normal human child that the wafer does
not turn into anything different, let alone human flesh, the wine does
NOT turn into blood when a priest mumbles incantations over it, and
the child performs a scientific test with his or her mouth after every
supposed miracle.
The test always proves that the priest has lied.
The wafer is still a wafer.
The wine is still very cheap vino.

And they are all able to identify flesh and blood orally.
For the child who has not cut him or herself and seen and licked
actual flesh, nor sucked their own blood from a cut finger, would be
most rare indeed.

This does not require any scientific sophistication in the youth
whatsoever.
Australian aboriginal kids living the traditional lifestyle are aware
of this basic fact of their own physiology, for instance.

To all children it would be obvious that the priest is lying to them,
and DEMANDING that they repeat the lie weekly, if not daily, at the
very least.

This is so elementary that I fail to see why you consider that this
form of lying, even in youth, would slip by unnoticed.
Or even worse, that it is somehow rendered "excusable" by later good
deeds.

It is the role of the church to ensure that such lies ARE accepted and
ingrained into the child to the point of unquestioned acceptance, yet
a moment's thought on the matter would reveal it's fraudulent nature!

And this is but ONE example of duplicity that is DEMANDED by the
various churches, in order to remain communicate.
There are hundreds more to choose from if this strikingly clear
example does not suit your "taste", or perhaps the Xtian Cult of your
contemplation.

Once again, we appear to be at quite opposite and extreme ends of this
particular spectrum.
So far as I can determine it, your stance is to wave away the lying
aspect, and apologetically assert that they are otherwise good.
This assessment of "goodness" seems to completely ignore the very real
fact that by simply being passive members of the religion, they
tacitly approve of, fund, encourage, and support the more extreme
actions of their church, up to and including genocide; even if by not
actively restraining it.

I'd hardly call that "being good".

>One of my favorite aunties was a 'died in the wool' Christian and nothing would budge her
>but she was a wonderful person. She lost her husband when he was fifty and went into
>wearing black for the rest of her life 'until she could join Daddy'. This is what I
>dislike about religion [not just Christianity] in a modern world [this took place forty
>years ago] she could have remarried instead of waiting fruitlessly for nearly fifty years
>before she herself finally passed away.

That's as may be.

But if it is to be germane to this topic, it is incumbent upon you to
show that she never lied due to her Christianity, and/or that she
never used her Christianity to con anyone, even elliptically.
Don't forget that your kind old Aunt actively and knowingly supported,
(even if by willful neglect of keeping tabs on what her donations of
cash, time, effort etc were funding), the rape of little kiddies, the
torture of orphans, the oppression of minorities etc etc.
You know the litany all too well, but appear to be in severe denial.
I can partly understand this attitude, but that in no way means that I
have assent to it, and especially not that I must agree with it.

>What are your views on Islam and Hinduism?

I have outlined a brief response to these questions in another message
(to you?).

You may wish to excuse my peremptory tone, but I have little enough
time to give you a considered reply, (at the moment), let alone one
that is littered with the courtesy that you have so rightly earned.
Accept my apologies, please.

--
 
You guys are looking for the wrong "GOD".

The only "supreme being" that can and does really exist
through eternity was identified by Baruch Spinoza.
Of course he was cursed by Jews and denounced by Christians
for it, because he shows the deities described in the Bible
are just man-made fantasy creations. -- L.
 
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:pjqnt2l1sl7fo5fflhd3uioj2u9v97cahb@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 06:34:05 GMT, "Semper Lib
 
"jl" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1172064169.603657.251320@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 21, 1:34 am, "Semper Lib
 
Michael Gray wrote:

> On 24 Feb 2007 04:23:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <45E011C4.6CA710C2@netvigator.com>
> >
> >
> >Michael Gray wrote:
> >
> >> On 24 Feb 2007 00:18:03 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> - Refer: <45DFD81F.528F576C@netvigator.com>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Michael Gray wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 23 Feb 2007 04:54:02 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> - Refer: <45DEC75B.8B3E5B1D@netvigator.com>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Michael Gray wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 22 Feb 2007 23:18:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> - Refer: <45DE7890.EB33D1FB@netvigator.com>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Pastor Frank wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> news:bedkt25jc2k340fjstt9r0ftctvkun83ns@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> >> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:36:48 +0800, in alt.atheism
> >> >> >> >> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> > <45d8c8cc$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for proving my point. So you disbelieve what I just said, as
> >> >> >> >> >>usual, and are now claiming that atheism is a belief system, instead of a
> >> >> >> >> >>disbelief system. Let's see you prove that. Either prove it, or admit
> >> >> >> >> >>your
> >> >> >> >> >>just lying for atheism again.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > You are the one who calls atheism a belief system. I call you on your
> >> >> >> >> > lie. Atheism is not a form of belief. Lack of belief is not a system.
> >> >> >> >> > You know that. You appear to like lying. Why is that?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Why is what? You proved no "lie". I agreed with you above, that atheism
> >> >> >> >> is not a belief system. It's however a DISbelief system, for you are forever
> >> >> >> >> listing all the things you don't believe and never get around to telling us
> >> >> >> >> anything about what you DO believe.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I believe that a fair proportion of religionists demonstrate constantly that
> >> >> >> >they are liars and
> >> >> >> >charlatans. That's what I believe
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I do NOT believe that.
> >> >> >> Unless by "fair proprtion", you mean exactly 100%
> >> >> >
> >> >> >One must allow for the ordinary person longing for security thinking they can find
> >> >> >it with an imaginary god, reinforced by following what their parents and
> >> >> >grandparents believed. These are not charlatans, the charlatans are the
> >> >> >propagators that lie and deceive.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, they do not lie when they claim that Jesus was born of a virgin?
> >> >> Flew up into the sky after being tortured to death?
> >> >> Came back down again and quietly chatted with a few people who never
> >> >> existed, and then went back up into the sky, and will come back down
> >> >> after 2,000 years?
> >> >> That when a priest raves some mumbo jumbo over a biscuit and some
> >> >> cheap vino, that it ACTUALLY turns into half-human flesh, and REAL
> >> >> blood of ONE person?
> >> >> Fot they quite simply MUST believe all this fraudulent crap to be
> >> >> considered Christian.
> >> >
> >> >I aghree they do, but it hardly makes them inferior or bad to others, which was my
> >> >point.
> >>
> >> My reading is that you clearly consider those people who
> >> deliberately lie insanely, but are otherwise good, to be "hardly"
> >> inferior to those who do good, but retain probity?
> >>
> >> That is where we differ, in spades!
> >>
> >> >It is the priets you mention who are the charlatans as they do it as a
> >> >profession.
> >>
> >> Quite.
> >> They are the ringleaders, like Fagin.
> >> But that in no way relieves the "Oliver Twist" from the culpability of
> >> his criminal offences, especially when most of them have an easy
> >> choice:
> >> Stay Christian and keep wilfully fabricating frauds, or drop the
> >> Christianity, and become honest.
> >> It doesn't take any change other than in one's mind, and at no
> >> expense.
> >>
> >> No, we seem to have very different opinions on this issue.
> >> They are wilfull, deliberate and conscious liars.
> >
> >Someone brought up in the church and brainwashed as a child, on reaching his teens is
> >hardly lying about his belief, he is simply misguided, misdirected and misinformed; but
> >he can still be a very nice person.
>
> The two things are totally separate.

like I put it

>
>
> It is completely obvious to any normal human child that the wafer does
> not turn into anything different, let alone human flesh, the wine does
> NOT turn into blood when a priest mumbles incantations over it, and
> the child performs a scientific test with his or her mouth after every
> supposed miracle.
> The test always proves that the priest has lied.
> The wafer is still a wafer.
> The wine is still very cheap vino.

Yes

>
>
> And they are all able to identify flesh and blood orally.
> For the child who has not cut him or herself and seen and licked
> actual flesh, nor sucked their own blood from a cut finger, would be
> most rare indeed.
>
> This does not require any scientific sophistication in the youth
> whatsoever.
> Australian aboriginal kids living the traditional lifestyle are aware
> of this basic fact of their own physiology, for instance.

I know - but you see in most cases it is the parents who back up these rituals and in many
cases it is very hard for people to call their parents 'charlatans and liars', in fact their
grandparents too !

>
>
> To all children it would be obvious that the priest is lying to them,
> and DEMANDING that they repeat the lie weekly, if not daily, at the
> very least.

I had that feeling at around age ten. yes

>
>
> This is so elementary that I fail to see why you consider that this
> form of lying, even in youth, would slip by unnoticed.
> Or even worse, that it is somehow rendered "excusable" by later good
> deeds.

no I didn't say that. I said the vast majority of people go to church because they think 'it
is the right thing to do' and they are in the main good decent folks.

Let us not fall into the trap and be like the majority of religionists who believe in their
hearts that we atheists are all bad guys with horns and pointed tails ! [smile]

>
>
> It is the role of the church to ensure that such lies ARE accepted and
> ingrained into the child to the point of unquestioned acceptance, yet
> a moment's thought on the matter would reveal it's fraudulent nature!
>
> And this is but ONE example of duplicity that is DEMANDED by the
> various churches, in order to remain communicate.
> There are hundreds more to choose from if this strikingly clear
> example does not suit your "taste", or perhaps the Xtian Cult of your
> contemplation.

I have been aware of this longer than you have, I celebrated my 77th yesterday

>
>
> Once again, we appear to be at quite opposite and extreme ends of this
> particular spectrum.
> So far as I can determine it, your stance is to wave away the lying
> aspect, and apologetically assert that they are otherwise good.

You twist my words, all I said was the vast majority of religionists were good decent folks,
no more, no less

>
> This assessment of "goodness" seems to completely ignore the very real
> fact that by simply being passive members of the religion, they
> tacitly approve of, fund, encourage, and support the more extreme
> actions of their church, up to and including genocide; even if by not
> actively restraining it.

Again the vast majority going to church are never aware of the genocide that you talk about.
Religionists wear blinkers most of the time that their parents fitted them with

>
>
> I'd hardly call that "being good".
>
> >One of my favorite aunties was a 'died in the wool' Christian and nothing would budge her
> >but she was a wonderful person. She lost her husband when he was fifty and went into
> >wearing black for the rest of her life 'until she could join Daddy'. This is what I
> >dislike about religion [not just Christianity] in a modern world [this took place forty
> >years ago] she could have remarried instead of waiting fruitlessly for nearly fifty years
> >before she herself finally passed away.
>
> That's as may be.
>
> But if it is to be germane to this topic, it is incumbent upon you to
> show that she never lied due to her Christianity, and/or that she
> never used her Christianity to con anyone, even elliptically.
> Don't forget that your kind old Aunt actively and knowingly supported,
> (even if by willful neglect of keeping tabs on what her donations of
> cash, time, effort etc were funding), the rape of little kiddies, the
> torture of orphans, the oppression of minorities etc etc.
> You know the litany all too well, but appear to be in severe denial.
> I can partly understand this attitude, but that in no way means that I
> have assent to it, and especially not that I must agree with it.

I thought I was a raging atheist but you surpass me. Unlike you I do not subscribe to the
'needs' of people in the religion to do the checks and balances you talk about here. most
never even think about the subjects like you do so there is no reason to expect a member of a
church to go digging into where the money goes etc.

>
>
> >What are your views on Islam and Hinduism?
>
> I have outlined a brief response to these questions in another message
> (to you?).

Yep I read it afterwards

>
>
> You may wish to excuse my peremptory tone, but I have little enough
> time to give you a considered reply, (at the moment), let alone one
> that is littered with the courtesy that you have so rightly earned.
> Accept my apologies, please.

No prob. Maybe we differ in one respect, I detest Islam far more that Christianity and as for
Buddhism, it is a completely honest belief.

Cheers

Humanist Brit.
Hong Kong

>
>
> --
 
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:06:48 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:n17rt2hne74up3olepgl9dbhuin18u99u4@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:35:13 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Yes, nevertheless, the practice of polygamy places these Mormon
>> >offshoots outside the Christian fold.
>>
>> Marriage itself does. Paul allows for it, but says that good
>> Christians should be celibate.
>>
>I do not believe this!

How can a Christian come up with an argument like that about what's in
the Bible?"I've never read it but I don't believe it says that?"

> It this were true, Christianity would have disappeared.

Why? Christians don't do what Jesus and Paul told them to do. If
they did they'd all be Jews, for starters. Where, in the NT, for
example, does it say that "Sunday" has become the new name of Sabbath
(the day BEFORE Sunday)?
 
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:07:47 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:m37rt2pjruipk7t0pq9c54f2mej0j2cqoh@4ax.com...

>> Which, by judging others, prove to be less Christian than those they
>> judge.

>No judgment, just an opinion.

Oh, right. "They're liars" isn't a judgment. Tell it to Jesus when
you find that your permanent address has lots of flames.
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:a931u29j8j0tov0249ng5dlvu0ap7h8t52@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:29:23 -0500, in alt.atheism
> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> <HB_Dh.10862$e8.6438@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
> >
> >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >news:7pfvt2d8vsctsvjk4bh473qjs3scf0b75h@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:14:33 -0500, in alt.atheism
> >> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in <xYODh.16618$z6.15765@bigfe9>:
> >> >
> >> >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >> >news:cfest2p1kpupctn0o33omhrcbaqon5p0a7@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:49:45 -0500, in alt.atheism
> >> >> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> >> >> <Bh9Dh.38628$19.29310@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"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
> >> >> >
> >> >> Not today, not publicly. Why, I'm sure it's been weeks since the
good
> >> >> Christians in the KKK have murdered anyone.
> >> >
> >> >Cite or do I just take the word of some who hates Christians?
> >>
> >> Once again, a supposed Christian lies in this newsgroup.
> >>
> >Whoever claimed that christians in the KKK murdered anyone in the
> >past few weeks are lying. I question that there are any Christians in
> >the KKK. The KKK is almost extinct.
>
> Everyone in the KKK claimed to be Christian.
>
> >> Why does that happen? You cannot show anywhere that I hate Christians
as a group.
> >>
> >It doesn't apply to you? Good! I seriously doubt you have ever personally
> >witnessed a cross burning or a KKK march in your entire life. You
> >mentioned good christians in the KKK killing people, I would bet
> >you have _never_ personally witnessed any such event yourself.
> >Neither have I and I live in the South. KKK lynching is a thing of the
past.
>
> That is good. I hope that is true, except we know that people justify
> their attacks on abortion clinics, murders of doctors and murders of
> gays with their supposed Christianity. Some Christians rightly condemn
> such vile acts, but others claim that the victims are condemned by God
> and, essentially, condone such attacks and murders.
>
It isn't fair to associate the countless good, upstanding people with the
few crackpots and fanatics. The overwhelming majorityof Christians
condemn these murder under any circumstance.
>
> >> Sure, I hate people who call themselves Christian and then act in ways
> >> that are completely contrary to Jesus's teachings. Sure, there are
still
> >> racists out there who claim to be Christian but have joined hate
groups.
> >> Even you can recognize that the history of Christianity includes
murders
> >> supposedly done in the name of God. What changed the "good Christians"
> >> who decided to engage in a war with the United States rather than give
> >> up their right to enslave other people?
> >>
> >Slavery was only one of several issues involved in the Civil War. The
direct
> >cause of the war was the secession of several Southern States beginning
> >with S. Carolina. This war was fought to preserve the Union. Slavery was
> >_not_ illegal at the time of the secession. Slavery was injected as a
cause
> >later in order to give the war a moral basis. President Lincoln
Emancipation
> >Proclamation was a propaganda move, since it applied only to the South
> >where it had no relevance. Neither did it apply to the Union states such
> >as Maryland, Delaware, Missouri etc. Slavery was not illegal until Dec.,
> >1865. Slavery was not limited to the South: all of the colonies had
slavery.
> >during colonial days.
>
> I understand that, but the Southern Baptist Convention, among other
> slavery-friendly institutions, intentionally broke from their other
> American Baptist fellows because they wanted to defend slavery. They
> claimed that it was just fine to own a slave and kill it.
>
I do not believe they said it is just fine to kill anyone slave or free.
You've presented no evidence of this - or that your statement is true.
>
> Those were the
> kinds of people who broke away from the Union and attacked the Union.
>
Slavery was not the issue with most of the people in the south. Indeed
only a small percentage of the southern population was wealthy enough
to buy slaves. It's hard to imagine the logic of non-slave owners fighting
for the right of the rich to own slaves. But it's not difficult to
understand taking up arms to defend against Northern armies, which
Lincoln needed to "put down the rebellion".
>
> >> What changed their children and
> >> grandchildren and great-grandchildren who were murdering the
descendents
> >> of the slaves and and getting away with it? When did Christians stop
> >> murdering other Christians and justifying their murders?
> >>
> >This is just propaganda. Christians cease to be Christian when they
> >willfully and deliberately commit sin, according to everything I ever
> >heard. Murder is definably sin. My Mother was a dedicated Christian.
> >She would never commit nor rationalize murder.
>
> No, it isn't. The slaveholders thought that murdering their slaves was
> just fine, they liked it so much that they changed the law to make
> certain that it wasn't called murder.
>
I challenge this. People ard not as cold hearted as you pretend.
Most people do not like to see anyone suffer, even animals
are protected. I agree that some slaveholders did mistreat their
slaves, but killing a valuable investment? It doesn't make sense
even from a financial viewpoint.
>
After the revolt of the
> slaveholders was put down, the intellectual and spiritual heirs of the
> slaveholders still went around murdering blacks. Even though those
> murders were indeed technically crimes, no one bothered to do anything
> about it. As far as I can tell, using your criteria, there were no
> Christians in the South until the laws against murdering blacks started
> to be enforced. That seems to be sometime after 1964.
>
You're implying that everyone in the South was engaged in such
horrific crimes? I challenge you on this. There was some of this
in isolated areas I'm sure, but it wasn't as wide spread as you
infer.

Dan
 

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