NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:02?pm, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 7:18 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 4, 3:59?pm, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > ?[...]
> > > Well, if Darrell Stec read his 30 Bibles, why didn't he know anything
> > > about them? ?The same question applies to you. ?I'll tell you what, I
> > > will quote a verse from Isaiah, and then you can say you have read a
> > > verse from the Old Testament.
> > > Isaiah 3:23 ?The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the
> > > vails.
> > > Robert B. Winn
> >
> > Poor Winnie. ?No need for the Tower of Babel to tie his tongue. ?The
> > thing is in a knot.
> >
> > Huh? ?What's this, Winnie, about the glasses and the fine linen? ?Some
> > kind of masonic ritual or are you a Mormon Klanster, a wizard under
> > the sheets?
> >
> > Time to go now, Winnie. ?James Cameron is putting on his show about
> > all those bones he found in the coffins of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Mary
> > Magdalen, and Judah, son of Jesus. ?Tune in: ?Discovery Channel at 9.
> > EST.
>
> Why are all atheists buying into this hoax? I thought atheists did
> not believe in Jesus Christ.
> Isaiah 3:24 And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell
> there shall be stink, instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well
> set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth;
> and burning instead of beauty.

Not believing in deities doesn't mean people named Jesus don't exist.
If you lived in the real world, you'd know that.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:15?pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 6:05 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >news:1hue729.pr88setfk8njN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> >
> > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > If so, whose responsibility
> > > is ?proof?
> >
> > Anybody can prove it wrong at any time by presenting evidence.
> > Nobody can ever prove it correct.
> >
> > > ?I would contend there is no way to prove such a
> > > claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
> > > responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
> >
> > "The claim cannot be proved - so therefore it is the claiments
> > responsibility to prove it."
> > That doesn't sound at all logical to me - forcing the impossible onto
> > a party as an obligation.
> >
> > Cheers, Mark.
>
> Would you like me to send you a copy of the Bible, Mark?

Would you like someone to buy you a clue?

 

[JessHC]

H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1173060933.990849.262500@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 4, 6:05 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:1hue729.pr88setfk8njN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> > >
> > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > If so, whose responsibility
> > > is proof?
> >
> > Anybody can prove it wrong at any time by presenting evidence.
> > Nobody can ever prove it correct.
> >
> > > I would contend there is no way to prove such a
> > > claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
> > > responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
> > >
> >
> > "The claim cannot be proved - so therefore it is the claiments
> > responsibility to prove it."
> > That doesn't sound at all logical to me - forcing the impossible onto
> > a party as an obligation.
> >
> If the claiment cannot prove his claim, he is a fool to make it;
> trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't get him off the hook!

The claim of a lack of evidence is proved by the lack of evidence. It
is you trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 5, 1:27?am, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 3:36 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> >
> > >news:1173060933.990849.262500@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > On Mar 4, 6:05 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > > >news:1hue729.pr88setfk8njN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> >
> > > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim?
> >
> > > > Yes.
> >
> > > > > If so, whose responsibility
> > > > > is ?proof?
> >
> > > > Anybody can prove it wrong at any time by presenting evidence.
> > > > Nobody can ever prove it correct.
> >
> > > > > ?I would contend there is no way to prove such a
> > > > > claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
> > > > > responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
> >
> > > > "The claim cannot be proved - so therefore it is the claiments
> > > > responsibility to prove it."
> > > > That doesn't sound at all logical to me - forcing the impossible onto
> > > > a party as an obligation.
> >
> > > If the claiment cannot prove his claim, he is a fool to make it;
> > > trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't get him off the hook!
> >
> > I would like to point out that calling every belief a person has a
> > "claim" would be misleading.
> > If someone says "I believe I saw a cat." - in some technical sense
> > this is a claim - but to insist that every thought, belief or
> > impression one has ever had about the truth of something needs "proof"
> > is unreasonable.
> >
> > The vast majority of things humans believe they do so without "proof"
> > - but that doesnt make the beliefs foolish or unreasonable.
> >
> > So if someone genuinely believes "there is no evidence of Gods
> > existence" then it would seem to me that to call this a "claim" is to
> > exagerate.
> >
> > Indeed if it was expressed as "I believe there is no evidence for God"
> > then instead of trying to get them on some technicality of rhetoric it
> > would be a lot more straightforward just to produce the evidence.
> > (Assuming the evidence existed of course.)
> >
> > Cheers, Mark.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Well, what about this scripture from Isaiah, Mark? Have you
> considered this scripture?
> Isaiah 3:25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the
> war.

Have you considered you're just making an ass of yourself?

 

[JessHC]

Pastor Frank wrote:
> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> news:e7ghu2li7og5pchn1mj0eu3q8s97anmkol@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:05:05 +0800, in alt.atheism
> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> >>
> >> Which "liberties" are those? And does Bush really "destroy" them?
> >> Prove
> >>it.
> >
> > I guess you haven't been following the President's decision to use the
> > NSA to spy in a way that is not allowed in the US. Too bad. It's scary
> > that people who don't even know what our president has been doing are
> > willing to give him the benefit of the doubt just because he makes a big
> > noise about being a Christian. I don't believe him for a minute, but
> > apparently he's only trying to con Christians.
> >
> >>Jesus is waiting to get your attention.
> >
> > There is no evidence that Jesus exists.
> >
> Jesus resurrected in all our hearts and minds, only atheists make a
> point of ignoring Him.

How does one ignore a non-existent thing?

 

[JessHC]

Pastor Frank wrote:
> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:l2ofu25j3689oqkknitg214b0cebi0anqq@4ax.com...
> >
> > But it forces them to do that, even if by willful ignorance, be that
> > through fear, or restricted opportunity, which is my entire point.
> > Atheism does not force people to lie.
> >
> Precisely! For atheism allows people to define the god they reject as
> ridiculously as possible so as to make existence of such a creature totally
> impossible. Therefore: There ain't no god(s) is automatically always true
> and there is no need to lie.

It isn't the atheist's responsibility to define your deities for you.

 

[Andrew]

On 2007-03-06 22:55:49 +0000, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> said:

> Pastor Frank wrote:
>> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:l2ofu25j3689oqkknitg214b0cebi0anqq@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> But it forces them to do that, even if by willful ignorance, be that
>>> through fear, or restricted opportunity, which is my entire point.
>>> Atheism does not force people to lie.
>>>
>> Precisely! For atheism allows people to define the god they reject as
>> ridiculously as possible so as to make existence of such a creature totally
>> impossible. Therefore: There ain't no god(s) is automatically always true
>> and there is no need to lie.
>
> It isn't the atheist's responsibility to define your deities for you.

Nor do we expect them to. The problem is with the definition of 'god'
used by many atheists - one which is unrecognisable to most Christians.
We have our understanding of God, and it suits us just fine.

 

[Andrew]

On 2007-03-06 22:54:44 +0000, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> said:

> Pastor Frank wrote:
>> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>> news:e7ghu2li7og5pchn1mj0eu3q8s97anmkol@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:05:05 +0800, in alt.atheism
>>> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>>>>
>>>> Which "liberties" are those? And does Bush really "destroy" them?
>>>> Prove
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> I guess you haven't been following the President's decision to use the
>>> NSA to spy in a way that is not allowed in the US. Too bad. It's scary
>>> that people who don't even know what our president has been doing are
>>> willing to give him the benefit of the doubt just because he makes a big
>>> noise about being a Christian. I don't believe him for a minute, but
>>> apparently he's only trying to con Christians.
>>>
>>>> Jesus is waiting to get your attention.
>>>
>>> There is no evidence that Jesus exists.
>>>
>> Jesus resurrected in all our hearts and minds, only atheists make a
>> point of ignoring Him.
>
> How does one ignore a non-existent thing?

The very fact that you're posting to this newsgroup answers your question.

 

[Andrew]

On 2007-03-06 22:12:12 +0000, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> said:

> H. Wm. Esque wrote:
>> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1173018520.978855.246000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>> On Mar 4, 12:05?am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:1hue729.pr88setfk8njN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim? If so, whose responsibility
>>>>> is ?proof? ?I would contend there is no way to prove such a
>>>>> claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
>>>>> responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you are an apostate Christian. ?That means you are
>> more
>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest than a person who was raised atheist.
>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, my dear Winnie, the ex-Christian has turned
>> away
>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> dishonesty and embraced truth. ?He is to be more admired and
>>>>> esteemed
>>>>>>>>>> for having grappled himself up out of the stifling
>> quicksands of
>>>>>>>>>> religion and walked in the verdant and enlightened fields of
>>>>> atheism.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, if you atheists are so happy, why can't you stay away
>> from
>>>>>>>>> trying to discredit religion?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because our world is under assault by religious groups who
>> invoke
>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> superstitions to control what others think and do. Did you miss
>> 9/11?
>>>>>>>> Have you not listened to Pat Robertson and other power mad
>>>>> evangelicals?
>>>>>>>> Have you not watched the creationists trying to take America
>> back to
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Dark Ages? Have you not heard the suicide bombers screaming "God
>> is
>>>>>>>> great"?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is increasingly clear that religion is a plague on
>> civilization, so
>>>>>>>> why would we "stay away" from such an important issue?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see. ?Well, we Christians are supposed to return good for evil,
>> so
>>>>>>> here is a verse from Isaiah to brighten your day.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It appears that you confuse talk about evil with the evil itself,
>> and
>>>>>> that you do not recognize yourself in that evil.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Isaiah3:13 ?The Lord standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge
>> the
>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And so you retreat to your warm fairy tales.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting choice of verse, by the way. After all, Christianity (as
>>>>>> most religions) employs judgement has a primary tool of control. As
>> I've
>>>>>> said before, Christians all seem to LOVE to judge people; I guess
>> you're
>>>>>> no exception...- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> Atheists reject the Bible
>>>
>>> No. We reject the unsupported supernatural claims made in the bible.
>>>
>>>> and say it proves nothing
>>>
>>> Because begging the question is a logical fallacy.
>>>
>>>> even though some will actually admit that the Bible exists.
>>>
>>> Please name one atheist who claims the bible doesn't exist.
>>>
>> I would say he misspoke.
>
> You're more generous than me.
>
>>>> One atheist told me he had
>>>> thirty Bibles, but what good is having a book if you do not read it?
>>>
>>> Did this person state they hadn't read it? Although it's a fine
>>> question to put to theists, now that you bring it up; I'm guessing
>>> better than 80% haven't read it cover to cover, judging by what
>>> nutcases like you say. An even better one would be "what sense does
>>> it make to worship a character in a book you apparently haven't read?"
>>>
>>>> I try to help atheists get over their ignorance by quoting verses from
>>>> the book of Isaiah.
>>>
>>> Considering that it seems more atheists are biblically well-read than
>>> theists,
>>>
>> I would question this statement.
>
> At one time, I might have, too. Then I started hanging out in
> alt.atheism. As far as I can tell, the majority of atheists here are
> far more familiar with the bible than virtually any of the theists
> wandering in. Not only that, atheists don't feel the need to
> "explain" what the text "really" means, which was something else I
> hadn't really noticed before hanging out here.

That last sentence belies your third. If your colleagues at alt.atheism
were really 'familiar with the Bible' then they would know what it is -
a collection of writings composed over the period 500 BC to 90 AD
(roughly speaking). The idea that such a set of writings can be used in
the 21st Century without interpretation ("explaining" what the text
"really" means) is one that only someone with no understanding of
literature or human psychology could possibly embrace.

Oh - and by the way - I filter out all posts cross-posted from
alt.atheism. In the past I've replied to such posts and the response
has, far from rational and reasoned argument, been abuse and
occasionally thteats of violence.

>
>> Sincere, devout Christians usually are
>> well read. However, there are some who are noninal Christians who
>> ususlly attend Church, others who are Christian for personal gain
>> who flaunt their faith in order to gain trust, expecially where they
>> hope for personal gain. I personally know an elderly couple who
>> were deprived of their life's savings by a Bible quoting "care giver"
>> who worked hard to gain their trust. Then she disappeared. She
>> had no interest in the couple except for what she could steal.
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Matthew 10:14
>>> And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
>>> depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
>>>
>> Christians who do not heed this verse are in violation of the very
>> faith they profess. There is no Biblical authorization to "shove ones
>> religion down the throat of another person". An atheist who wants
>> a defense against over-bearing proselytizers should be able to
>> point to this verse as a defense.
>
> Agreed. It's surprising how many xians rationalize why the verse
> doesn't really mean what it says.

The meaning is actually pretty clear. In its context it requires
Christians to proselytise - to attempt to spread the Gospel. Where that
becomes "shoving ones's religion down the throat of another person" is
a matter of judgement - not interpretation of a verse from scripture.
The text merely says that there will be times when the message is not
accepted and it is time to move on.

 

[Pastor Frank]

"stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message
news:c82dnTQag9JmF3HYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@ptd.net...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>> "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message
>> news:FtKdneWQEuiDUnTYnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@ptd.net...
>>> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>>> Are you simple minded, that you should believe Satan's minions who
>>>> claim to be followers of Christ, yet do the opposite from what Christ
>>>> commanded, as well as justify doing so. That's why Jesus said: By their
>>>> actions ye shall know them. Yet you believe
>>>> their words instead of their actions?
>>> You are right. Would you be kind enough to let us know whether you
>>> would stone all adulterers or not? ~Stumper
>>>
>> Why would keep asking a Christian a question about keeping the laws of
>> Judaism? We don't keep the laws of Judaism, save perhaps the 10
>> commandments. Those who call themselves Christians are to follow Christ
>> and do what He would do. See below
>> Pastor Frank
>>
>> Jesus in John 8:3: And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman
>> taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4: They say
>> unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5:
>> Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what
>> sayest thou? 6: This they said, tempting him, that they might have to
>> accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the
>> ground, as though he heard them not. 7: So when they continued asking
>> him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them,
>> He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
>> 8: And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9: And they which
>> heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one
>> by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left
>> alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10: When Jesus had lifted up
>> himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are
>> those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11: She said, No man,
>> Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no
>> more.
>
> NIV Matthew 19
>> 16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing
>> must I do to get eternal life?"
>> 17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is
>> only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the
>> commandments."
>> 18"Which ones?" the man inquired.
>> Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not
>> steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and
>> mother,'[d] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[e]"
>> 20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still
>> lack?"
>> 21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your
>> possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in
>> heaven. Then come, follow me."
>> 22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had
>> great wealth.
>
> What would you do if they don't obey?
>
Mourn the loss of my child.



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

 

[Pastor Frank]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:45EC9870.3299@armory.com...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>> news:un2ju256eskd972bacbeq4s16nsshq7m4m@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:50:19 +0800, in alt.atheism
>> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>> > <45e8fa01$0$16381$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>> >>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>> >>news:70qeu21934vf7sp50ejdu2g6eduqn4ljtb@4ax.com...
>> >>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 22:44:09 +0800, in alt.atheism
>> >>> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>> >>> <45e7076a$0$16281$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>> >>>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:2ho9u25n0bfth0pee9taf3gkua6vn3tev2@4ax.com...
>> >>>>> On 26 Feb 2007 22:20:17 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>In any event, if you think I am mocking Jesus, why don't you take
>> >>>>>>your
>> >>>>>>complaint to him when he returns to judge the earth?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Because there is no evidence that Jesus will ever return and there
>> >>>>> is
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>> great deal of evidence that people are harmed by the teachings of
>> >>>>> those
>> >>>>> who claim to be the followers of Jesus.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> There you go again making broad accusations without presenting a
>> >>>> shred
>> >>>>of evidence.
>> >>>
>> >>> Are you trying to deny that there have been people who claim to be
>> >>> followers of Jesus but have caused serious harm in the world with
>> >>> their
>> >>> evil?
>> >>>
>> >> Are you simple minded, that you should believe Satan's minions who
>> >> claim
>> >>to be followers of Christ, yet do the opposite from what Christ
>> >>commanded,
>> >>as well as justify doing so. That's why Jesus said: By their actions ye
>> >>shall know them. Yet you believe their words instead of their actions?
>> >
>> > I don't believe their words. I never claimed to. I'm perfectly willing
>> > to accept that Falwell, Robertson, Bush, Cheney, Franklin Graham, and
>> > the rest of these supposed Christians are not Christian in any way.
>> > Your
>> > problem is offering objective evidence about who is Christian and who
>> > is
>> > not.
>> >
>> Christ tells me not to judge people. All I am allowed is to judge
>> actions.
>
> First we kill all the amateur lawyers.
> I don't think that Jesus meant that you could seperate the two,
> he just didn't tell you because he expected you to understand what
> he was saying, your version is just YOUR ignorant wish-fulfillment!!
> Steve
>
No. It's what the Christ of the NT Bible tells us. (See below) The
"ignorant wishful thinking" is all yours.

Pastor Frank

JUDGMENT
Jesus in Mt:18:7: Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must
needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence
cometh!
Jesus in Matt. 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them...."
Jesus in Mt:7:2: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged:
and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Jesus in Lk:6:37: Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not,
and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Jesus in Mt12:36-37: But I say unto you, That every idle word that men
shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by
thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Jesus in Jn:8:15: Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
Jesus in Jn:12:47: And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I
judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Jesus in Mt:23:12: And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased;
and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Jesus in Mt:6:21: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be
also.
Rv:13:10: He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he
that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Abiding is the
patience and the faith of the saints to that day.
2 Thess. 1:6: "It is righteous on God's part to repay tribulation to
those who make tribulation for you [his servants]."
Rom 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes
judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you
who judge practice the same things.
1Cor:4:3: But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged
by you, or by any man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
1Cor:4:4: For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified:
but He that judgeth me is my Father which is in Heaven.
2 Cor 10:12 (NLT) Oh, don't worry; I wouldn't dare say, that I am as
wonderful as these other men, who tell you how important they are! But they
are only comparing themselves with each other, and measuring themselves by
themselves. What foolishness!
Ephesians 2:8-9: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not
of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should
boast.
Jms:2:24: Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by
faith only.
Rom 3:10: There are none righteous, no not one.
Rom. 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is
eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."



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

 

[Pastor Frank]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:45EC96DA.7A18@armory.com...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>
>> "Actual power"? You must be kidding. Don't you know amor vincit
>> omnia?
>> Show me something that has more power than love.
> -----------------
> That's just another crap phrase people recite because they might
> wish it so, but "love" doesn't conquer ANYTHING, that isn't what
> it does, in the first place, and many things can destroy love quite
> easily, torture, guns, affairs, minor squabbles, egotism, etc.
> Steve
>
You are not answering the question, are you? What is more powerful that
love? All those things you list would only result in extinction. Only love
keeps us in being.



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

 

[Pastor Frank]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:45EC97CA.50C9@armory.com...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>> news:sg2ju29v8q0tho940jn1a3e6d73dbcfpcg@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:46:07 +0800, in alt.atheism
>> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>> > <45e8f9fe$0$16381$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>> >>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>> >>news:croeu25amqqusj8b7cv0qcff7tul8hho4e@4ax.com...
>> >>>
>> >>> Apparently you are a bot of very little memory. If you had any memory
>> >>> at
>> >>> all, you would know that you had already tried this lie on me and
>> >>> that I
>> >>> pointed out that I own a number of Bibles and have read it through.
>> >>> You
>> >>> would also remember that the Bible does not qualify as evidence in
>> >>> support of the claim that gods exist. It is no more evidence than any
>> >>> of
>> >>> the other religious and religiously-inspired books. Many people, some
>> >>> just for kicks, have written religious texts. None are supported by
>> >>> any
>> >>> evidence.
>> >>>
>> >> There you go again specifying that a God to exists, he must be
>> >> evidenced
>> >>to your specifications and approval. There is no such requirement. It's
>> >>a
>> >>free country and everyone can regard anything or anyone as their god,
>> >>no
>> >>matter whether abstract or concrete.
>> >
>> > Go ahead, define any god and show the evidence for his existence. You
>> > will either end up with a trivially true god, e.g. god is the universe,
>> > or a god unsupported by the evidence, e.g. the god defined in the
>> > Nicene
>> > Creed.
>> > Feel free to avoid false equivocation however. You don't get to invent
>> > one definition for god to show that evidence exists for it and then
>> > redefine god to claim that an afterlife exists.
>> >
>> What's with the specifications? Did I not just say, that atheists
>> want
>> us have our God approved by them before we believe in Him?
> ----------------------------
> And erroneously as well! Atheists want nothing to do with your
> fantasies.
> Steve
>
I see. You just can't help yourself.



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

 

[Pastor Frank]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:45EC9AA3.2D00@armory.com...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1hue7f7.1snh7swcxfzxbN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
>> > Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> So now we are told thet there "is no such thing" as profanity, and
>> >> >> according to atheists dictionaries and Bibles are lying, for only
>> >> >> atheists know the truth, ...only privately so however, for they
>> >> >> can't
>> >> >> seem to evidence this truth.
>> >> >
>> >> > Atheists are not 'all knowing', but they do use their common sense
>> >> > and
>> >> > logic - THAT is the big difference
>> >> >
>> >> There is no way values on the scale of good vs. evil, can be
>> >> determined
>> >> by "common sense and logic".
>> >
>> > Nor can be it determined by nonsense and superstition. But that hasn't
>> > stopped you from trying, now has it?
>> >
>> Neither you parents telling you to be a "good boy" without explaining
>> logically what they mean, nor Jesus Christ's commandments to love are
>> "nonsense" nor "superstition".
> -----------------------
> Sure they are, they're ambiguous as all hell! For example, if the
> greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as you would wish to
> be loved, then why not begin to have sex with your neighbor? That
> IS what you wish she'd do to you!?!! And how many cheeks do you
> turn if someone is beating you to death? It gets totally crazy when
> examined, folks, it was intended to confuse slaves out of attacking
> their masters, not as a moral code!!
>
Typical atheist again to confuse love with lust. Love is what a parent
show their child, who in the cold light of atheist reality is a parasitic
entity, best aborted early in life.



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

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 6, 5:15�am, "justiz" <izstan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 1:40 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 2:40 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:13:03 -0800, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 6, 1:58�pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 8:13 pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >>> On Mar 5, 11:48?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> >>>> On 4 Mar., 17:21, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:1173018520.978855.246000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mar 4, 12:05?am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>> snip
> >>>>>> Matthew 10:14
> >>>>>> And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
> >>>>>> depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
> >>>>> Christians who do not heed this verse are in violation of the very
> >>>>> faith they profess. There is no Biblical authorization to "shove ones
> >>>>> religion down the throat of another person". An atheist who wants
> >>>>> a defense against over-bearing proselytizers should be able to
> >>>>> point to this verse as a defense
> >>>> We have, and, just like you and the inane champion of the world
> >>>> (little Winn), they ignore it.
> >>> Well, as I told you before, that was Christ's instruction to his
> >>> twelve apostles.

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 6, 2:21�pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 2:40 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:13:03 -0800, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 6, 2:26�pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:58:26 -0800, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>
> wrote:
>

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 6, 2:29�pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2007 04:15:10 -0800, "justiz" <izstan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

 

[rbwinn]

On Mar 6, 3:28�pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 7:28?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Did this person state they hadn't read it? ?Although it's a fine
> > > question to put to theists, now that you bring it up; I'm guessing
> > > better than 80% haven't read it cover to cover, judging by what
> > > nutcases like you say. ?An even better one would be "what sense does
> > > it make to worship a character in a book you apparently haven't read?"
>
> > > > I try to help atheists get over their ignorance by quoting verses from
> > > > the book of Isaiah.
>
> > > Considering that it seems more atheists are biblically well-read than
> > > theists, what "ignorance" are you trying to help them get over? ?Is
> > > Isaiah the only book you've read? ?Are the verses you quote relevant
> > > to the conversation?
>
> > > > Isaiah 3:19 ?The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,
>
> > > Have you read this one?
>
> > > Matthew 10:14
> > > And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
> > > depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, those instructions were to the twelve apostles.