NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1173724351.280332.283470@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> rbwinn wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 7:32?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>> > rbwinn wrote:
>> > > On Mar 12, 4:14?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > How do you know that that was not a lie?
>> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> > > >news:1173667520.132051.18860@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>> > > > >On Mar 11, 6:49?pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
>> > > > >?wrote:
>
>> > > > > > ===>The fictional character "Jesus" is called "Christ",
>> > > > > > ?but he never said he was "Jehovah". -- L.
>> > > > > Actually he did.
>> > > > > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
>
>> > > If Jesus Christ had ever lied, he would not have been able to atone
>> > > for the sins of mankind.
>> >
>> > Matthew 16:28
>> > Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not
>> > taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
>>
>> Thank you, Jess. Wonderful to see you are studying the scriptures.
>
> Yes, isn't it? It allows me to point out where Jesus was lying.
>
I have seen Christ "coming into His Kingdom", and so have all born-again
Christians. That makes you a false accuser, Jess.
Have you got your fire-proof suit ready yet?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1173724521.374854.165270@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> rbwinn wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 9:31?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>> > rbwinn wrote:
>> > > You asked. ?Sorry you did not like the answer.
>> >
>> > It's not a matter of likes and dislikes, mooooron, we just do not
>> > believe you. The low quality of your scholarship and erudition speaks
>> > for itself. Plus you got caught in a lie, that JessHC is opposed to
>> > freedom of speech. Standing in opposition to the radical religious
>> > right
>> > trying to make their religious beliefs the law of the land is not
>> > opposition to freedom of speech, it is merely the defense of the
>> > constitutional principle of separation of church and state.- Hide
>> > quoted text -
>> >
>> People who have religious beliefs are not excluded by the Constitution
>> from participation in the government. If you do not like someone who
>> has religious beliefs, why don't you vote for some atheists?
>
> We do. Unfortunately, most people are as deluded as you.
>
You consider yourself the only bright spot in this dismal scene, don't
you? You are bright because of the flames, Jess.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1173724589.267095.53060@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> rbwinn wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 9:03?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > How do you know that the sins were atoned?
>> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1173707487.274055.278030@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > >If Jesus Christ had ever lied, he would not have been able to atone
>> > >for the sins of mankind.
>> > >Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> There would be no way anyone who sinned could be saved if the
>> atonement had not happened.
>
> Circular reasoning. You lose again.
>
You don't REALLY think you are winning, are you Jess?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 13, 6:52�pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Mar 13, 3:56?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 13, 11:22?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Richo wrote:
>>>>>>> The vast majority of things humans believe they do so without "proof"
>>>>>>> - but that doesnt make the beliefs foolish or unreasonable.
>>>>>> That may be the doctrine in your religion, but not everyone agrees with
>>>>>> you. For instance:
>>>>>> "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
>>>>>> evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
>>>>> Evidence does not work on atheists. ?
>>>> ?>
>>>> I am atheist and evidence works on me. So what you say is false, Bob.
>>>> ?>> They only acknowledge evidence
>>>>> which they believe supports their philosophy.
>>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>>> Don't be stupid, Bob. That's the theist MO.
>>> I am not stupid. �
>> Then quit acting stupid. That's the theist MO. Atheism is not a
>> philosophy looking for something to support it, atheism is just an
>> absence of theism, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in
>> the existence of gods." --http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
>>
>> Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
>> to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
>> existence of gods:
>>
>> "That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
>> doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
>> without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
>> the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
>> "Agnosticism and Christianity"http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
>>
>> "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
>> evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics- Hide quoted text -
>>
> Well, if you want to try to prove that nothing exists, go ahead and
> try.

?What?? Where did I assert, "Nothing exists"??? Are you imagining things?
 
On 13 Mar 2007 18:25:56 -0700, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1173835556.418159.261710@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>:
>On Mar 13, 6:10?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 13 Mar 2007 17:51:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1173833508.636582.7...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 13, 4:35?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On 12 Mar 2007 21:15:38 -0700, in alt.atheism
>> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> <1173759337.896438.204...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >On Mar 12, 5:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:54:56 +0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> >> "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >> >> <et4p7h$n4...@registered.motzarella.org>:
>>
>> >> >> >It is not that I do not want to accept, but like to see jesus being crucified. so can you make the
>> >> >> >necessary arrangements.
>>
>> >> >> >"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:1173737798.798364.161660@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> On Mar 12, 2:11?pm, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > So is anyone saved by the atonement?
>>
>> >> >> >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> >> >news:1173723597.337466.251030@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> >> > > There would be no way anyone who sinned could be saved if the
>> >> >> >> > > atonement had not happened.
>> >> >> >> > > Robert B. Winn
>> >> >> >> > > On Mar 12, 9:03?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > > How do you know that the sins were atoned?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >> Those who accept the atonement of Christ will be saved.
>> >> theists say
>> >> >> >> they will not accept the atonement of Christ.
>>
>> >> >> Do they? I certainly don't say that. It would be interesting for you to
>> >> >> present a statement from an atheist showing that the atheist would
>> >> >> reject such a thing.
>>
>> >> >> I don't believe the claims of people about gods because the claims are
>> >> >> unsupported by evidence.-
>>
>> >> >Well, how do you accept the atonement of Christ without admitting he
>> >> >exists?
>>
>> >> The claim that there is such an atonement is one of the claims about
>> >> gods that is unsupported by the evidence.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >Well, so you reject the atonement of Christ, just as I said in the
>> >beginning.
>>
>> No, I do not reject it. I merely have no reason to think it exists.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>Why do you have no reason to think it exists? You think God did not
>do his part?

There is no evidence about any gods or about Jesus as the divine.
 
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1173724521.374854.165270@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 9:31?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>> You asked. ?Sorry you did not like the answer.
>>>> It's not a matter of likes and dislikes, mooooron, we just do not
>>>> believe you. The low quality of your scholarship and erudition speaks
>>>> for itself. Plus you got caught in a lie, that JessHC is opposed to
>>>> freedom of speech. Standing in opposition to the radical religious
>>>> right
>>>> trying to make their religious beliefs the law of the land is not
>>>> opposition to freedom of speech, it is merely the defense of the
>>>> constitutional principle of separation of church and state.- Hide
>>>> quoted text -
>>>>
>>> People who have religious beliefs are not excluded by the Constitution
>>> from participation in the government. If you do not like someone who
>>> has religious beliefs, why don't you vote for some atheists?
>> We do. Unfortunately, most people are as deluded as you.
>>
> You consider yourself the only bright spot in this dismal scene, don't
> you?

Nope.

> You are bright because of the flames, Jess.

And you have your eyes closed.
 
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1173710819.345768.186260@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Mar 11, 5:42?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:15:22 -0700, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> That isn't what characterizes atheism, moron, "Atheism is
>>>>> characterized
>>>>> by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."
>>>>> --http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
>>>>> Even you should be able to grasp that.
>>>> He does grasp it.
>>>> He is desperately thrashing about for attention.
>>>>
>>> Well, what I do is study atheists because I have nothing better to
>>> do. The problem with your idea is that attention from an atheist is
>>> always an adverse incident.
>> So why are you here, begging for attention from atheists?
>>
> Christ commissioned us to do so. See below.

You mean when he said "Shake the dust from your feet as a testimony
against them"?


> Who commissioned you to proselytize atheism in our pristine and hallowed Christian NGs?

You did, liar, when you crossposted your dishonest crap into alt.atheism.
 
On Mar 14, 6:10?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What were written, were they written correctly?

Well, what do you think was written incorrectly?
Robert B. Winn
 
On Mar 14, 6:15�am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But Jesus could have possibly existed!
 
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1173274048.270648.39520@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Mar 6, 10:53?pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
>>>> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Why don't you explain it to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> earth?
>>>>>> That's so adorable! You think some guy who lived 2000 years ago (if
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> existed at all) is going to "return to judge the earth"? It's just
>>>>>> too
>>>>>> cute for words!
>>>>>> No, wait... You're an ADULT, right? Hmmm, scratch what I said, it's
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> cute at all, it's just ridiculous.
>>>>> Well, Scot, I would not be the one to discuss your idea with. ?Why
>>>>> don't you take an opportunity to discuss it with Jesus Christ after
>>>>> he
>>>>> returns to judge the earth?
>>>> Like I said, a grown man saying these things: ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a tip, Skippy. For a threat to work, the person at whom the
>>>> threat is directed has to believe the threat is real. Otherwise, you
>>>> come across like a four year old child trying to scare his parents by
>>>> claiming a monster is in the closet.
>>>>
>>>> Does any of this make sense to you?
>>> Nothing any atheist has ever said to me made any sense. You are no
>>> exception.
>> That explains so much about you.
>>
> Atheists don't make any sense, for the god they waste their life
> lambasting, is some comic book character and not originated by any Theist
> scripture.

Lying is still a sin, Frank.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 10, 5:55�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Mar 9, 5:24?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9 Mar 2007 11:12:49 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> ? - Refer: <1173467568.901846.277...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 8, 8:06?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 12:09?am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:53:34 -0800, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (ScottRichter) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ? - Refer: <1hukpsp.1pxrmuu1t335k3N%scottrichter...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you explain it to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth?
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's so adorable! You think some guy who lived 2000 years ago (if he
>>>>>>>>>>>> existed at all) is going to "return to judge the earth"? It's just too
>>>>>>>>>>>> cute for words!
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, wait... You're an ADULT, right? Hmmm, scratch what I said, it's not
>>>>>>>>>>>> cute at all, it's just ridiculous.
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Scot, I would not be the one to discuss your idea with. ?Why
>>>>>>>>>>> don't you take an opportunity to discuss it with Jesus Christ after he
>>>>>>>>>>> returns to judge the earth?
>>>>>>>>>> Like I said, a grown man saying these things: ridiculous.
>>>>>>>>>> Here's a tip, Skippy. For a threat to work, the person at whom the
>>>>>>>>>> threat is directed has to believe the threat is real. Otherwise, you
>>>>>>>>>> come across like a four year old child trying to scare his parents by
>>>>>>>>>> claiming a monster is in the closet.
>>>>>>>>>> Does any of this make sense to you?
>>>>>>>>> Too many big words.
>>>>>>>>> Too much threatening reality.
>>>>>>>>> Too much sanity for pathetic little Bobby.
>>>>>>>> I have never seen an atheist say anything that had much meaning.
>>>>>>> That's the sad result of your inability to interact with reality.
>>>>>>>> Now, Isaiah was a person who could make meaningful statements.
>>>>>>> As is this statement.-
>>>>>> Well, compare your statement with one from Isaiah.
>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>> Perhaps not.
>>>> I partially quote from a scholarly analysis of the great Qumran Isaiah
>>>> Scroll:
>>>> "An example of other frequently found editorial corrections: A good
>>>> example of an unmarked redundancy is in Isaiah 38:19 and 20. In verse
>>>> 20, (line 12) after the second word "le-hoshiy'eniy" ?(to save me) the
>>>> whole of verse 19 is repeated as well as the first two words of verse
>>>> 20. There is nothing to indicate the repetition which is an obvious
>>>> error. But an omission in the next two verses is corrected in the
>>>> margin. The last word of verse 21 and the first 6 words of 22 were
>>>> omitted and an editor with a different hand and stroke and spelling
>>>> (kiy without the aleph) entered the omitted words in the left margin
>>>> vertically. There is no way to account for a careful editor spotting
>>>> the omitted words and not noting the redundancy which he could not
>>>> have avoided seeing."
>>>> As one can plainly see, Robby the Robot's Isaiah is chock full of
>>>> errors, corrections and mistakes.
>>>> (But I am referring to an original 1st century scroll, in Hebrew and
>>>> Aramaic. Obviously inferior to Bobbie's little "illustrated book of
>>>> bible stories for boys and girls" that he uses when he is lucid enough
>>>> to be able to read.)
>>> The Nelson version of the Bible printed one particular year does the
>>> same thing. �One verse is repeated. �That did not affect the versions
>>> of the Bible which only printed the verse once. �An atheist would
>>> claim that this printing error is proof that the Bible is untrue.
>> No, an atheist would claim that this printing error is proof that the
>> bible isn't the inerrant word of any deity, since by containing an
>> error, it's errant. �Atheists recognize there are actually true things
>> in the bible, just like there are true things in The Wizard of Oz, or
>> Stephen Kings' books.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> The Bible is subject to all kinds of error, sometimes intentional and
> sometimes accidental. Notwithstanding that all of these errors can
> occur, we can compare the text of Isaiah that we have in the King
> James version of the Bible with the text of the Dead Sea scroll
> version and see that there is no significant difference. Pointing out
> that a scribe repeated a verse in the Dead Sea Scroll version shows
> how desperate atheists are to find a difference. What was the Essene
> scribe supposed to do, throw away the entire scroll because he had
> made an error?

What prevented god from allowing the error into what's supposed to be
his divinely inspired word? Are the errors divinely inspired, too?
 
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1173273176.499928.288000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Mar 7, 12:32?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>>>> Mettas Mother wrote:
>>>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
>>>> ?>
>>>> No evidence of absence is ever required in any case. The burden of
>>>> proof
>>>> cannot be shifted to the non-believers.
>>>>
>>>> The only reasonable default presumption in any case like this is the
>>>> null, 'NO ET,' 'NO GOD' no whatever.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
>>>>
>>>> http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
>>> Have you considered this verse from Isaiah?
>>> Isaiah 4:6 And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the
>>> daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge , and for a covert
>>> from storm , and from rain.
>> Please provide a rational, legitimate reason for any atheist to
>> consider any quote from your book of mythology as anything other than
>> part of your mythology.
>>
> We believe someone, i.e. the Biblical authors, much like you believe
> others telling you, that man went to the moon. Or did you check that the
> whole thing wasn't just a politically inspired fake to show up the Russian
> Communists, and found the claim to be justified?

I'm sorry, did you not understand the request?
 
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
> news:y5edna5NbpcM93PYnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Mettas Mother wrote:
>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
>> No evidence of absence is ever required in any case. The burden of proof
>> cannot be shifted to the non-believers.
>> The only reasonable default presumption in any case like this is the null,
>> 'NO ET,' 'NO GOD' no whatever.
>> http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
>> http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
>>
> Yes. The usual atheist nonsense. There are innumerable existing gods,
> for a god is anything or anyone being called a god. Much like atheists
> insist, that anyone calling himself a Christian, is one.
> The absent god is only the one of atheist definition, for they define
> the word to mean some comic book character. LOL

You have yet to explain why any atheist would waste time trying to
define your deities for you.
 
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
> news:y5edna5NbpcM93PYnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Mettas Mother wrote:
>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
>> No evidence of absence is ever required in any case. The burden of proof
>> cannot be shifted to the non-believers.
>> The only reasonable default presumption in any case like this is the null,
>> 'NO ET,' 'NO GOD' no whatever.
>> http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
>> http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
>>
> You won't meet up with any argument from us theists. We all agree with
> you, that the god(s) of atheist definition are guaranteed not to exist. But
> then there are millions who have their very own existing concrete god(s)
> they pray to and make offerings to. And others have abstract gods: I.e. our
> Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) whom we serve, ...to the death if
> need be.

You serve love, do you? On a platter?
 
On Mar 14, 6:39?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In order to solve a problem we must first recognize that there is a problem
> In order to reject Christ , there must first be a Christ!
> Atonement of Christ was/is only possible if there was/is a Christ!
> So was/is there Christ?
>
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173833508.636582.7480@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Well, so you reject the atonement of Christ, just as I said in the
> > beginning.
> > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
>
I could send you a copy of the Bible. You could read it and decide
for yourself.
Robert B. Winn
 
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1173273021.538983.179950@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Mar 7, 12:10?am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6 Mar 2007 14:52:00 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> ? - Refer: <1173221520.689544.138...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>>>>> Have you considered you're just making an ass of yourself?
>>>> That appears to be an avowed goal of his.
>>>>
>>> Now why would an atheist be concerned about what my goals are?
>> Because you keep defecating in alt.atheism.
>>
>>> Do atheists concern themselves with the goals of all people?
>> No, just the goals of people trying to impose their religious beliefs
>> on everyone.
>>
> Tell us about that "imposition"? But I'm not holding my breath till you
> do, for it's pretty certain, that when it comes down it, you object to
> being told to keep your pants up in public. LOL

What's written on your money, Frank? What words are in your pledge?
 
On Mar 14, 6:43�am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why did you ask that?
 
On Mar 14, 6:51?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 12:10?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Mar 13, 7:33?am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > > > > > Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism
> > > > > >>> Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > >>>> Jesus is gonna kill people?
> > > > > >>> Malachi 4:1 ?or, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven:
> > > > > >>> and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble,
> > > > > >>> and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts,
> > > > > >>> that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
> > > > > >> So Jesus is gonna burn up all the bad people?
> > > > > > The bad people are all going to burn up.
>
> > > > > What will Jesus be doing at that time? ?Stoking the fires?
>
> > > > Why don't you take it up with him?
>
> > > Explain how one can do that with an imaginary character.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Well, if you believe he is imaginary, why did you ask if he was
> > stoking fires?
>
> Learn to read.- Hide quoted text -
>
Well, here is what I read: What will Jesus be doing at that time?
Stoking the fires?
Now go ahead an show me what you think I misread.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Mar 14, 6:52�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 12:10?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Mar 13, 8:03?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 12, 4:59?pm, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Then who lied?
>
> > > > > > The people who accuse Jesus Christ of lying lied.
>
> > > > > Really. ?So who is still alive that was there listening to Jesus when
> > > > > he said "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
> > > > > shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
> > > > > kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)?
>
> > > > John 21:20 ?Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus
> > > > loved following: which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said,
> > > > Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
> > > > 21 ?Peter seeing him saith unto Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man
> > > > do?
> > > > 22 ?Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is
> > > > that to thee? ?follow thou me.
>
> > > So your response is to dodge the question, because you can't admit
> > > Jesus lied.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Jesus Christ did not lie.
 
On Mar 14, 7:04?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 4:35?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > On 12 Mar 2007 21:15:38 -0700, in alt.atheism
> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > <1173759337.896438.204...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > >On Mar 12, 5:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:54:56 +0800, in alt.atheism
> > > >> "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > >> <et4p7h$n4...@registered.motzarella.org>:
>
> > > >> >It is not that I do not want to accept, but like to see jesus being crucified. so can you make the
> > > >> >necessary arrangements.
>
> > > >> >"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > >> >news:1173737798.798364.161660@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > > >> >> On Mar 12, 2:11?pm, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> > So is anyone saved by the atonement?
>
> > > >> >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >> >> >news:1173723597.337466.251030@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> >> > > There would be no way anyone who sinned could be saved if the
> > > >> >> > > atonement had not happened.
> > > >> >> > > Robert B. Winn
> > > >> >> > > On Mar 12, 9:03?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > How do you know that the sins were atoned?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> >> Those who accept the atonement of Christ will be saved. theists say
> > > >> >> they will not accept the atonement of Christ.
>
> > > >> Do they? I certainly don't say that. It would be interesting for you to
> > > >> present a statement from an atheist showing that the atheist would
> > > >> reject such a thing.
>
> > > >> I don't believe the claims of people about gods because the claims are
> > > >> unsupported by evidence.-
>
> > > >Well, how do you accept the atonement of Christ without admitting he exists?
>
> > > The claim that there is such an atonement is one of the claims about
> > > gods that is unsupported by the evidence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Well, so you reject the atonement of Christ, just as I said in the beginning.
>
> If by "atonement of christ" you mean "unsupported assertion," then yes.- Hide quoted text -
>
Well, obviously words in the English language have no meaning to you.
Why don't you quote some Latin phrases? I am sure that would make you
feel better.
Robert B. Winn
 

Similar threads

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