NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

[Al Klein]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:12:52 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:jb7rt2pt6a32ui9qa1aj6a5svai7gioume@4ax.com...

>> >> 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.

>> Meaning nothing. They can both be wrong. Either one can be correct.
>> They can both be correct. (Are you limiting an omnipotent god?)

>It's impossible physically to be two places at the same time.

He's only in one place - everyplace. Remember? He's omnipresent? But
saying "it's impossible physically to be two places at the same time"
IS limiting an omnipotent god. Or are you limiting him to logical
things?

Did you REALLY graduate dental college?

>> In the present Christianity is arguing with outsiders. If, in the
>> present, there were no outsiders to argue with, history shows us that
>> Christians would be arguing with each other.

>I disagree, Methodist, Baptist, Luthererns etc. have very little to disagree
>about.

That's 3 sects. There are over 2200 sects. I'm sure Catholics,
Orthodox and Mormons don't see eye to eye. Even Russian Orthodox and
"Eastern" Orthodox have differences. Do Episcopalians see things the
same way that members of Church of God do?

>> > I look around, I do not
>> >see Methodist, Baptist Lutherans, Presbyterians or Catholics killing
>> >each other.

>> You don't look around at a world in which they have no outsiders to
>> kill. Or have you forgotten the history of the past 100 years?

>Again you are living in the past. Come into the present.

Oh, you mean like Northern Ireland, where Protestants are killing
Catholics?

 

[Al Klein]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:29:23 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>I question that there are any Christians in the KKK.

It's one of the membership requirements.

>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.

That was the proximate cause, not the direct cause.

>This is just propaganda. Christians cease to be Christian when

We can't hear you - the bagpipe music is too loud.

 

[Al Klein]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:18:05 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>I know this is taught as justification for polygamy, where is is still
>practiced. This was exposed on nightline a few weeks ago.

Just as your myth was used as justification for slavery and mass
murder. But, since it's yours, it's not a myth and it wasn't
complicit in anything bad.

 

[Dan@V.A.]

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0m22u21idv2rstukooibipa9l5ddsok4ub@4ax.com...
> 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?"
>
Where does Paul say it better for Christians to be celibrate?
>
> > 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)?
>
It's immaterial, Christians I believe accept the first day of the week
as their Sabbath, with the exception of Adventist.

Dan

 

[Michael Gray]

On 24 Feb 2007 21:31:05 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <45E10290.93D81BB6@netvigator.com>
>
>
>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

I can accept that.

>> 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 !

That is a very valid reason for lying, but not an excuse.

>> 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

Then you know that you were being "forced" to lie outright.
As are the majority of "sane" Christians, (and Muslims).

>> 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.

Again, a case of willful ignorance.

>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]

I have not fallen into that trap.
I'm sure that they are otherwise reasonable humans.
I simply re-iterate that they are willful liars.
No excuse can be made for any sane modern adult, other than that.

>> 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

Congratters, old chap!
That didn't come out too well, did it?!
You have some 27 years experience on me.

>> 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

You have my apologies if I have misrepresented your words, or your
intent.
I simply call 'em as I see 'em.

>>
>> 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 count the wilfully ignorant as accessories to the crimes enabled by
their support. So do most courts.


>> 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.

I am not alone in this "no quarter" approach, much as no quarter is
usually granted in political discussions, I am regularly irked by the
wilfully ignorant criminal supporters being given slack, just because
they label their lies "religion".
Luminaries such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins also subscribe to my
philosophy.

Liars are liars, no matter what their excuse is.
Theists' lies are dangerous in the extremem, even the seemingly benign
ones, as they offer cover for believing without reason, and this is
the fertilizer for jihadists, and theocratic dictators, such a George
Walker Bush, and the various Ayatollahs, etc.

>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.

Willful ignorance is no excuse in a court of law, in fact is
considered as serious and enabling accessory in many cases.

>> >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.

I agree that Buddhism is quite benign, and in the world ranking of
"things to be eliminated", comes very near the bottom of the list,
just below pudding-bowl haircuts!

>Cheers
>
>Humanist Brit.
>Hong Kong

--

 

[Dan@V.A.]

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:k442u2dt9j5oqpnhbp750tevq16oroj1dg@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:12:52 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:jb7rt2pt6a32ui9qa1aj6a5svai7gioume@4ax.com...
>
> >> >> 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.
>
> >> Meaning nothing. They can both be wrong. Either one can be correct.
> >> They can both be correct. (Are you limiting an omnipotent god?)
>
> >It's impossible physically to be two places at the same time.
>
> He's only in one place - everyplace. Remember? He's omnipresent? But
> saying "it's impossible physically to be two places at the same time"
> IS limiting an omnipotent god. Or are you limiting him to logical
> things?
>
This is in reference to the birthplace according to the Bible and the
BOM.
>
> Did you REALLY graduate dental college?
>
I did, probably before you were born.
>
> >> In the present Christianity is arguing with outsiders. If, in the
> >> present, there were no outsiders to argue with, history shows us that
> >> Christians would be arguing with each other.
>
> >I disagree, Methodist, Baptist, Luthererns etc. have very little to
disagree
> >about.
>
> That's 3 sects. There are over 2200 sects. I'm sure Catholics,
> Orthodox and Mormons don't see eye to eye. Even Russian Orthodox and
> "Eastern" Orthodox have differences. Do Episcopalians see things the
> same way that members of Church of God do?
>
There are some minor differences, I agree. But there are core beliefs
shared by most of them.
>
> >> > I look around, I do not
> >> >see Methodist, Baptist Lutherans, Presbyterians or Catholics killing
> >> >each other.
>
> >> You don't look around at a world in which they have no outsiders to
> >> kill. Or have you forgotten the history of the past 100 years?
>
> >Again you are living in the past. Come into the present.
>
> Oh, you mean like Northern Ireland, where Protestants are killing
> Catholics?
>
One side wants a unified (one) Ireland and the people of Northern
Ireland want to remain part of Great Britain. It isn't a issue of religion.
It is basically a political conflict.

This is my final post for a while. I have bigger fish to fry.

My Best Regards,
Dan Wood, DDS

 

[thomas p.]

On 25 Feb., 03:12, "Semper Lib

 

[thomas p.]

On 25 Feb., 03:12, "Semper Lib

 

[thomas p.]

On 25 Feb., 06:35, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:k442u2dt9j5oqpnhbp750tevq16oroj1dg@4ax.com...
snip

> One side wants a unified (one) Ireland and the people of Northern
> Ireland want to remain part of Great Britain. It isn't a issue of religion.
> It is basically a political conflict.

It is not an accident that one side is Catholic and the other side is
Protestant. It is also a fact that if you are Protestant or Catholic,
regardless of your political position, you are in danger if you are
unfortunate enough to live in an area dominated by the opposite
religion. Of course politics are involved, but the very fact that
religion is used by both sides demonstrates that it motivates hatred.
Yugoslavia would be another example as would India, Pakistan, Sri
Lanka, the Sudan, Iraq, Israel, etc.

 

[Pastor Frank]

"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1htsy0q.158qd1qoke4afN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1htqhxh.18bgdpfzkc43tN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
>> > Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Is "reality" the god you worship? Reality worshippers are stoic
>> >> fatalists, ready to accept whatever reality dishes out. Only God's
>> >> people
>> >> are willing to make an effort to live up to ideals, in the hope of
>> >> improving
>> >> upon reality.
>> >
>> > Is "UNreality" the god you worship? Unreality worshippers are willful
>> > delusionists, ready to accept whatever their clery dishes out. Only
>> > realists are willing to make an effort to understand the world in which
>> > we live, in the hope of improving upon that reality.
>> >
>> What is "UNreality"? You seem clueless as to the values Christ
>> represents. "clerics" indeed!!! See below
>
> Below is "UNreality"--you of all people ought to know that, because you
> choose to worship a fictional character.
>
Your lack of evidence for your assertions is getting to be glaring as
well as boring. Why not assemble your evidence that Christ was a character
invented by some unknown but exceedingly brilliant ancient authors who
managed to write the most translated, printed and sold book in the world
ever since Gutenberg mass produced the Bible? Then present your evidence to
the world.
You will be famous and make a lot of money.



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

 

[jl]

On Feb 25, 12:23 am, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
[...]
> > 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?"
>
> Where does Paul say it better for Christians to be celibrate?

Here is an answer to your question whether Danny is a dentist.
>

 

[duke]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:14:45 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:

>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.

Everkybody but you knows he's wrong.

duke, American-American

"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 23, 9:22�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2007 18:09:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172282994.677931.75...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 23, 11:05?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Feb 22, 12:18 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com>, i. e., Winnie thePooh, wrote:
>
> >>

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 23, 11:00�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> rbwinnwrote:
> > On Feb 22, 9:21�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > >rbwinnwrote:
> > > > On Feb 18, 10:09�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > > > >rbwinnwrote:
> > > > > > 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.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 23, 11:14�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> Free Lunch wrote:
> > On 23 Feb 2007 04:21:33 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > <1172233293.851121.149...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>:
> > >On Feb 22, 9:52?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > >> "thomas p." wrote:
> > >> > On 15 Feb., 00:54, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >> > > On Feb 13, 11:48?pm, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> > >> > snip
>
> > >> > > > > I offered to send you a copy of the Bible. ?You have consistently
> > >> > > > > maintained that the Bible does not exist.
>
> > >> > > > Poor little Bobby thinks that repeating inane lies accomplishes
> > >> > > > something besides making him look like a fool.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > >> > > Well, let's get right to it.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 23, 11:23�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> Darrell Stec wrote:
> > After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 9:59 pm
> >rbwinnperhaps from rbwi...@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
> > >> amrbwinnperhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > >> > On Feb 22, 10:22?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > >> >>rbwinnwrote:
> > >> >> > 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.

 

[Libertarius]

duke wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:14:45 -0700, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Everkybody but you knows he's wrong.

===>Ah, so now you think of yourself as "everybody"???
Your sickness is getting worse, Duckie! -- L.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 24, 3:56�pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:47:46 -0600, Don Kresch<ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>
>

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 24, 3:57�pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:22:02 GMT, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 24, 3:58�pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:22:37 GMT, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>