NO MORE CAVE DWELLERS, AND CHRISTIAN SKY PIXIE HASN'T SAID A WORD SINCE--HMMMM

[SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim]

A couple of thousand years ago when people were living in caves and ****ing
goats, people would "hear" from this fictional god character a lot, and
they'd write whatever they imagined down and would say that it "came from
the god". Later, some dumbass nutcase put their superstitious blatherings
together in a book and called it a bible.

Now of course, when we have technology and can actually VERIFY the source of
the information, and aren't living in caves and ****ing goats anymore, then
"all of a sudden" the ALL-POWERFUL christian sky pixie "god" character has
been remarkebly quiet.

what's up?, he has nothing to say lately, no new passages for his almighty
precious book? maybe a few corrections, like cleaning up the horseshit in
the christian bible, maybe clearing up the text in the bible so that
christian retards don't TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT?
Maybe he could get rid of the contradictions in the christian bible,
although granted, that would only leave about 3 pages left after he was
finished. .

maybe the sky pixie could say, you know what, if you eat some fruit from a
tree, the penalty has been reduced, no more damned to hell for all eternity,
instead, pay a nickel and go on your merry way.

oh, and hey, no more turning people into pillars of salt, just because they
looked over their shoulder, after all, everyone is entitled to one last look
at their hometown, heck lots of people go on vacations to visit relatives,
friends they still have in their hometowns, so certainly looking over ones
shoulder at their hometown shouldn't be that big a deal.

so, sky pixie, what, nothing new to say lately?, or is it because you never
existed in the first place, and you were nothing more than the bullshit
ramblings of some superstitious cave dwellers and goat ****ers who had
overactive imaginations and needed an imaginary playmate to watch over them.

 

[Ghamph]

"SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" <killgod@killgod.com> wrote in message
news:13pn27f1lfvd127@corp.supernews.com...
>
> A couple of thousand years ago when people were living in caves and
****ing
> goats, people would "hear" from this fictional god character a lot, and
> they'd write whatever they imagined down and would say that it "came from
> the god". Later, some dumbass nutcase put their superstitious blatherings
> together in a book and called it a bible.

They have a dream while sleeping, about building a boat or killing their
child and they think that it was God speaking.

>
> Now of course, when we have technology and can actually VERIFY the source
of
> the information, and aren't living in caves and ****ing goats anymore,
then
> "all of a sudden" the ALL-POWERFUL christian sky pixie "god" character has
> been remarkebly quiet.

The people now days know that dreams are not God speaking but our own
subconscious.

>
> what's up?, he has nothing to say lately, no new passages for his almighty
> precious book? maybe a few corrections, like cleaning up the horseshit in
> the christian bible, maybe clearing up the text in the bible so that
> christian retards don't TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT?
> Maybe he could get rid of the contradictions in the christian bible,
> although granted, that would only leave about 3 pages left after he was
> finished.

Exactly.

>
> maybe the sky pixie could say, you know what, if you eat some fruit from
a
> tree, the penalty has been reduced, no more damned to hell for all
eternity,
> instead, pay a nickel and go on your merry way.

The tree of knowledge is (knowledge) not a tree.
The tree of life is (knowledge of what life is) not a tree.
The snake in the garden of Eden was put there because God thought that it
would be a laughable prank.
If a God existed, He is laughing His sadistic ass off.

>
> oh, and hey, no more turning people into pillars of salt, just because
they
> looked over their shoulder, after all, everyone is entitled to one last
look
> at their hometown, heck lots of people go on vacations to visit relatives,
> friends they still have in their hometowns, so certainly looking over ones
> shoulder at their hometown shouldn't be that big a deal.

Just by not calling His name, one is condemned to an eternal lake of fire.

>
> so, sky pixie, what, nothing new to say lately?, or is it because you
never
> existed in the first place, and you were nothing more than the bullshit
> ramblings of some superstitious cave dwellers and goat ****ers who had
> overactive imaginations and needed an imaginary playmate to watch over
them.
>
>
Eternal death wasn't enough of a deterrent so they invented eternal torture
and lake of eternal fire.
Yeah, that'll put the fear of God into them!

 

[Andrew]

On 2008-01-26 20:56:52 +0000, "Ghamph" <ghamph@localnet.com> said:

>
> "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" <killgod@killgod.com> wrote in message
> news:13pn27f1lfvd127@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> A couple of thousand years ago when people were living in caves and
> ****ing
>> goats, people would "hear" from this fictional god character a lot, and
>> they'd write whatever they imagined down and would say that it "came from
>> the god". Later, some dumbass nutcase put their superstitious blatherings
>> together in a book and called it a bible.
>
> They have a dream while sleeping, about building a boat or killing their
> child and they think that it was God speaking.
>
>>
>> Now of course, when we have technology and can actually VERIFY the source
> of
>> the information, and aren't living in caves and ****ing goats anymore,
> then
>> "all of a sudden" the ALL-POWERFUL christian sky pixie "god" character has
>> been remarkebly quiet.
>
> The people now days know that dreams are not God speaking but our own
> subconscious.
>
>>
>> what's up?, he has nothing to say lately, no new passages for his almighty
>> precious book? maybe a few corrections, like cleaning up the horseshit in
>> the christian bible, maybe clearing up the text in the bible so that
>> christian retards don't TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT?
>> Maybe he could get rid of the contradictions in the christian bible,
>> although granted, that would only leave about 3 pages left after he was
>> finished.
>
> Exactly.
>
>>
>> maybe the sky pixie could say, you know what, if you eat some fruit from
> a
>> tree, the penalty has been reduced, no more damned to hell for all
> eternity,
>> instead, pay a nickel and go on your merry way.
>
> The tree of knowledge is (knowledge) not a tree.
> The tree of life is (knowledge of what life is) not a tree.
> The snake in the garden of Eden was put there because God thought that it
> would be a laughable prank.
> If a God existed, He is laughing His sadistic ass off.
>
>>
>> oh, and hey, no more turning people into pillars of salt, just because
> they
>> looked over their shoulder, after all, everyone is entitled to one last
> look
>> at their hometown, heck lots of people go on vacations to visit relatives,
>> friends they still have in their hometowns, so certainly looking over ones
>> shoulder at their hometown shouldn't be that big a deal.
>
> Just by not calling His name, one is condemned to an eternal lake of fire.
>
>>
>> so, sky pixie, what, nothing new to say lately?, or is it because you
> never
>> existed in the first place, and you were nothing more than the bullshit
>> ramblings of some superstitious cave dwellers and goat ****ers who had
>> overactive imaginations and needed an imaginary playmate to watch over
> them.
>>
>>
> Eternal death wasn't enough of a deterrent so they invented eternal torture
> and lake of eternal fire.
> Yeah, that'll put the fear of God into them!

Would you two like to get a room?

 

[Snowman]

The Romans were cave dwellers? The Classical Greeks?

 

[SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim]

"Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2008012621083216807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
> On 2008-01-26 20:56:52 +0000, "Ghamph" <ghamph@localnet.com> said:
>
>>
>> "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" <killgod@killgod.com> wrote in message
>> news:13pn27f1lfvd127@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> A couple of thousand years ago when people were living in caves and
>> ****ing
>>> goats, people would "hear" from this fictional god character a lot, and
>>> they'd write whatever they imagined down and would say that it "came
>>> from
>>> the god". Later, some dumbass nutcase put their superstitious
>>> blatherings
>>> together in a book and called it a bible.
>>
>> They have a dream while sleeping, about building a boat or killing their
>> child and they think that it was God speaking.
>>
>>>
>>> Now of course, when we have technology and can actually VERIFY the
>>> source
>> of
>>> the information, and aren't living in caves and ****ing goats anymore,
>> then
>>> "all of a sudden" the ALL-POWERFUL christian sky pixie "god" character
>>> has
>>> been remarkebly quiet.
>>
>> The people now days know that dreams are not God speaking but our own
>> subconscious.
>>
>>>
>>> what's up?, he has nothing to say lately, no new passages for his
>>> almighty
>>> precious book? maybe a few corrections, like cleaning up the horseshit
>>> in
>>> the christian bible, maybe clearing up the text in the bible so that
>>> christian retards don't TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT?
>>> Maybe he could get rid of the contradictions in the christian bible,
>>> although granted, that would only leave about 3 pages left after he was
>>> finished.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>>
>>> maybe the sky pixie could say, you know what, if you eat some fruit from
>> a
>>> tree, the penalty has been reduced, no more damned to hell for all
>> eternity,
>>> instead, pay a nickel and go on your merry way.
>>
>> The tree of knowledge is (knowledge) not a tree.
>> The tree of life is (knowledge of what life is) not a tree.
>> The snake in the garden of Eden was put there because God thought that it
>> would be a laughable prank.
>> If a God existed, He is laughing His sadistic ass off.
>>
>>>
>>> oh, and hey, no more turning people into pillars of salt, just because
>> they
>>> looked over their shoulder, after all, everyone is entitled to one last
>> look
>>> at their hometown, heck lots of people go on vacations to visit
>>> relatives,
>>> friends they still have in their hometowns, so certainly looking over
>>> ones
>>> shoulder at their hometown shouldn't be that big a deal.
>>
>> Just by not calling His name, one is condemned to an eternal lake of
>> fire.
>>
>>>
>>> so, sky pixie, what, nothing new to say lately?, or is it because you
>> never
>>> existed in the first place, and you were nothing more than the bullshit
>>> ramblings of some superstitious cave dwellers and goat ****ers who had
>>> overactive imaginations and needed an imaginary playmate to watch over
>> them.
>>>
>>>
>> Eternal death wasn't enough of a deterrent so they invented eternal
>> torture
>> and lake of eternal fire.
>> Yeah, that'll put the fear of God into them!
>
> Would you two like to get a room?
>

what's the matter, upset because your magical fantasy land sky pixie hasn't
"said anything" since the days of superstitious cave dwellers and goat
****ers?

 

[bob young]

Andrew wrote:

> On 2008-01-26 20:56:52 +0000, "Ghamph" <ghamph@localnet.com> said:
>
> >
> > "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" <killgod@killgod.com> wrote in message
> > news:13pn27f1lfvd127@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> A couple of thousand years ago when people were living in caves and
> > ****ing
> >> goats, people would "hear" from this fictional god character a lot, and
> >> they'd write whatever they imagined down and would say that it "came from
> >> the god". Later, some dumbass nutcase put their superstitious blatherings
> >> together in a book and called it a bible.
> >
> > They have a dream while sleeping, about building a boat or killing their
> > child and they think that it was God speaking.
> >
> >>
> >> Now of course, when we have technology and can actually VERIFY the source
> > of
> >> the information, and aren't living in caves and ****ing goats anymore,
> > then
> >> "all of a sudden" the ALL-POWERFUL christian sky pixie "god" character has
> >> been remarkebly quiet.
> >
> > The people now days know that dreams are not God speaking but our own
> > subconscious.
> >
> >>
> >> what's up?, he has nothing to say lately, no new passages for his almighty
> >> precious book? maybe a few corrections, like cleaning up the horseshit in
> >> the christian bible, maybe clearing up the text in the bible so that
> >> christian retards don't TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT?
> >> Maybe he could get rid of the contradictions in the christian bible,
> >> although granted, that would only leave about 3 pages left after he was
> >> finished.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> >>
> >> maybe the sky pixie could say, you know what, if you eat some fruit from
> > a
> >> tree, the penalty has been reduced, no more damned to hell for all
> > eternity,
> >> instead, pay a nickel and go on your merry way.
> >
> > The tree of knowledge is (knowledge) not a tree.
> > The tree of life is (knowledge of what life is) not a tree.
> > The snake in the garden of Eden was put there because God thought that it
> > would be a laughable prank.
> > If a God existed, He is laughing His sadistic ass off.
> >
> >>
> >> oh, and hey, no more turning people into pillars of salt, just because
> > they
> >> looked over their shoulder, after all, everyone is entitled to one last
> > look
> >> at their hometown, heck lots of people go on vacations to visit relatives,
> >> friends they still have in their hometowns, so certainly looking over ones
> >> shoulder at their hometown shouldn't be that big a deal.
> >
> > Just by not calling His name, one is condemned to an eternal lake of fire.
> >
> >>
> >> so, sky pixie, what, nothing new to say lately?, or is it because you
> > never
> >> existed in the first place, and you were nothing more than the bullshit
> >> ramblings of some superstitious cave dwellers and goat ****ers who had
> >> overactive imaginations and needed an imaginary playmate to watch over
> > them.
> >>
> >>
> > Eternal death wasn't enough of a deterrent so they invented eternal torture
> > and lake of eternal fire.
> > Yeah, that'll put the fear of God into them!
>
> Would you two like to get a room?

Andrew, church attendance in my life time in the UK has dropped from around
seventy percent to less than twenty percent today.

There are millions of non believers out there, not just two.

You cannot rely on being cute, you have to address atheistic opinions on
religious belief head on if you seek credibility.

Bob

The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental
despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people
in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and
all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting
human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We
ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish,
after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all
these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not
need a regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free
intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. (Bertrand Russell
W.N.C.p23)

 

[Andrew]

On 2008-01-27 02:34:02 +0000, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> said:

>
>
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> On 2008-01-26 20:56:52 +0000, "Ghamph" <ghamph@localnet.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" <killgod@killgod.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13pn27f1lfvd127@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> A couple of thousand years ago when people were living in caves and
>>> ****ing
>>>> goats, people would "hear" from this fictional god character a lot, and
>>>> they'd write whatever they imagined down and would say that it "came from
>>>> the god". Later, some dumbass nutcase put their superstitious blatherings
>>>> together in a book and called it a bible.
>>>
>>> They have a dream while sleeping, about building a boat or killing their
>>> child and they think that it was God speaking.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now of course, when we have technology and can actually VERIFY the source
>>> of
>>>> the information, and aren't living in caves and ****ing goats anymore,
>>> then
>>>> "all of a sudden" the ALL-POWERFUL christian sky pixie "god" character has
>>>> been remarkebly quiet.
>>>
>>> The people now days know that dreams are not God speaking but our own
>>> subconscious.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> what's up?, he has nothing to say lately, no new passages for his almighty
>>>> precious book? maybe a few corrections, like cleaning up the horseshit in
>>>> the christian bible, maybe clearing up the text in the bible so that
>>>> christian retards don't TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT?
>>>> Maybe he could get rid of the contradictions in the christian bible,
>>>> although granted, that would only leave about 3 pages left after he was
>>>> finished.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> maybe the sky pixie could say, you know what, if you eat some fruit from
>>> a
>>>> tree, the penalty has been reduced, no more damned to hell for all
>>> eternity,
>>>> instead, pay a nickel and go on your merry way.
>>>
>>> The tree of knowledge is (knowledge) not a tree.
>>> The tree of life is (knowledge of what life is) not a tree.
>>> The snake in the garden of Eden was put there because God thought that it
>>> would be a laughable prank.
>>> If a God existed, He is laughing His sadistic ass off.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> oh, and hey, no more turning people into pillars of salt, just because
>>> they
>>>> looked over their shoulder, after all, everyone is entitled to one last
>>> look
>>>> at their hometown, heck lots of people go on vacations to visit relatives,
>>>> friends they still have in their hometowns, so certainly looking over ones
>>>> shoulder at their hometown shouldn't be that big a deal.
>>>
>>> Just by not calling His name, one is condemned to an eternal lake of fire.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> so, sky pixie, what, nothing new to say lately?, or is it because you
>>> never
>>>> existed in the first place, and you were nothing more than the bullshit
>>>> ramblings of some superstitious cave dwellers and goat ****ers who had
>>>> overactive imaginations and needed an imaginary playmate to watch over
>>> them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Eternal death wasn't enough of a deterrent so they invented eternal torture
>>> and lake of eternal fire.
>>> Yeah, that'll put the fear of God into them!
>>
>> Would you two like to get a room?
>
> Andrew, church attendance in my life time in the UK has dropped from around
> seventy percent to less than twenty percent today.
>
> There are millions of non believers out there, not just two.
>
> You cannot rely on being cute, you have to address atheistic opinions on
> religious belief head on if you seek credibility.

When they are cogently and rationally expressed I do, as you well know.
See below.

>
> Bob
>
> The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental
> despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people
> in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and
> all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting
> human beings.

I tend to agree with this when it is taken too far, but it only
reflects a part of religious thinking. Christian thinking also
encourages us to think ourselves nothing less than the children of God,
made in the image of God, and to recognise the potential that implies
lies in us and in other human beings.

> We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We
> ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as
> we wish,
> after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all
> these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage;

I don't know of any Christian (or Muslim or Jewish) theologian who
would demur from this (apart from the phrase referring to "these
others"). Russell's values here are thoroughly rooted in the Christian
traditions of the society he came from.

> it does not
> need a regretful hankering after the past,

Christianity (and Islam and Judaism) look forward to a glorious future
- not just in the afterlife, but here on Earth. We would thoroughly
endorse this.

> or a fettering of the free
> intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. (Bertrand Russell
> W.N.C.p23)

Russell had a peculiarly jaundiced view of religion.

 

[bob young]

Andrew wrote:

> On 2008-01-27 02:34:02 +0000, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> said:
>
> >
> >
> > Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> On 2008-01-26 20:56:52 +0000, "Ghamph" <ghamph@localnet.com> said:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" <killgod@killgod.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:13pn27f1lfvd127@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>>
> >>>> A couple of thousand years ago when people were living in caves and
> >>> ****ing
> >>>> goats, people would "hear" from this fictional god character a lot, and
> >>>> they'd write whatever they imagined down and would say that it "came from
> >>>> the god". Later, some dumbass nutcase put their superstitious blatherings
> >>>> together in a book and called it a bible.
> >>>
> >>> They have a dream while sleeping, about building a boat or killing their
> >>> child and they think that it was God speaking.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Now of course, when we have technology and can actually VERIFY the source
> >>> of
> >>>> the information, and aren't living in caves and ****ing goats anymore,
> >>> then
> >>>> "all of a sudden" the ALL-POWERFUL christian sky pixie "god" character has
> >>>> been remarkebly quiet.
> >>>
> >>> The people now days know that dreams are not God speaking but our own
> >>> subconscious.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> what's up?, he has nothing to say lately, no new passages for his almighty
> >>>> precious book? maybe a few corrections, like cleaning up the horseshit in
> >>>> the christian bible, maybe clearing up the text in the bible so that
> >>>> christian retards don't TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT?
> >>>> Maybe he could get rid of the contradictions in the christian bible,
> >>>> although granted, that would only leave about 3 pages left after he was
> >>>> finished.
> >>>
> >>> Exactly.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> maybe the sky pixie could say, you know what, if you eat some fruit from
> >>> a
> >>>> tree, the penalty has been reduced, no more damned to hell for all
> >>> eternity,
> >>>> instead, pay a nickel and go on your merry way.
> >>>
> >>> The tree of knowledge is (knowledge) not a tree.
> >>> The tree of life is (knowledge of what life is) not a tree.
> >>> The snake in the garden of Eden was put there because God thought that it
> >>> would be a laughable prank.
> >>> If a God existed, He is laughing His sadistic ass off.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> oh, and hey, no more turning people into pillars of salt, just because
> >>> they
> >>>> looked over their shoulder, after all, everyone is entitled to one last
> >>> look
> >>>> at their hometown, heck lots of people go on vacations to visit relatives,
> >>>> friends they still have in their hometowns, so certainly looking over ones
> >>>> shoulder at their hometown shouldn't be that big a deal.
> >>>
> >>> Just by not calling His name, one is condemned to an eternal lake of fire.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> so, sky pixie, what, nothing new to say lately?, or is it because you
> >>> never
> >>>> existed in the first place, and you were nothing more than the bullshit
> >>>> ramblings of some superstitious cave dwellers and goat ****ers who had
> >>>> overactive imaginations and needed an imaginary playmate to watch over
> >>> them.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Eternal death wasn't enough of a deterrent so they invented eternal torture
> >>> and lake of eternal fire.
> >>> Yeah, that'll put the fear of God into them!
> >>
> >> Would you two like to get a room?
> >
> > Andrew, church attendance in my life time in the UK has dropped from around
> > seventy percent to less than twenty percent today.
> >
> > There are millions of non believers out there, not just two.
> >
> > You cannot rely on being cute, you have to address atheistic opinions on
> > religious belief head on if you seek credibility.
>
> When they are cogently and rationally expressed I do, as you well know.
> See below.
>
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental
> > despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people
> > in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and
> > all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting
> > human beings.
>
> I tend to agree with this when it is taken too far, but it only
> reflects a part of religious thinking. Christian thinking also
> encourages us to think ourselves nothing less than the children of God,

I know, but it comes from our insecurity
since there is nothing, apart from stories written by other humans,
to suggest that there is a god and we are it's children.

An atheist needs more than this before he will accept it

>
> made in the image of God, and to recognise the potential that implies
> lies in us and in other human beings.

The other view is that man is arrogant [which he frequently cannot refrain from
demonstrating]
and therefore man makes his gods in his OWN image.

Take a look at all of the known gods, with very few exceptions they appear as we do.

An atheist will ask why this is and draw his own conclusion.

>
>
> > We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We
> > ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as
> > we wish,
> > after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all
> > these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage;
>
> I don't know of any Christian (or Muslim or Jewish) theologian who
> would demur from this (apart from the phrase referring to "these
> others"). Russell's values here are thoroughly rooted in the Christian
> traditions of the society he came from.

I am sure he refers here to religionists in general. I agree about his background
[I m one quarter 'Russell' on my paternal grandmother's side - she was Scottish
too]. Many are brought up following Christian traditions, I got them at Sunday
School [I remember being given little stamps to paste into a book each time i got a
questions about Jesus right]. My school was the same as Isaac Newton attended for a
time and we had the parish church opposite where we went for church service once a
week, part of it was in Latin - High Church they called this [arrogance !].

W.W.II was in full swing at the time and we boys prayed for 'the glorious victory of
out troops at the front' - no doubt the German and Italian kids were praying to the
same god for the same thing !

Twice a week we had classes called 'Divinity' and our one Roman Catholic boy had to
sit in the corridor during these sessions - I think this is what first had me
questioning the whole gambit.

>
> > it does not
> > need a regretful hankering after the past,
>
> Christianity (and Islam and Judaism) look forward to a glorious future
> - not just in the afterlife, but here on Earth. We would thoroughly
> endorse this.

But I am sure that you realise that Russell was referring to the historical message
of Christianity and it's claims from the past, most of which can not be replicated
today, such as miracles and chatting, one on one, with a god, like Moses claimed he
did

>
>
> > or a fettering of the free
> > intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. (Bertrand Russell
> > W.N.C.p23)
>
> Russell had a peculiarly jaundiced view of religion.

I prefer to call his views practical rather than jaundiced

I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not believe in God and
suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And if there were a God, I think it
very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those
who doubt his existence. (Bertrand Russell)

He has a valid pint. The uneasiness does not come from the god itself but from it's
followers who crave for larger gatherings under the same roof and fear those that
gather under different roofs, even if the rituals are only slightly different.

I was taken to sunday school by an elder female cousin and on the way to the
Methodist chapel we had to pass by the Congregational chapel and I remember as a
seven year old asking her why we didn't go there instead; her response was to
quicken the pace, lower her head and mumble something I could never really
understand - another question mark for me about religions.

Have good week

Bob

 

[Andrew]

On 2008-01-28 05:42:01 +0000, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> said:

>
>
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> On 2008-01-27 02:34:02 +0000, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-01-26 20:56:52 +0000, "Ghamph" <ghamph@localnet.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" <killgod@killgod.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:13pn27f1lfvd127@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A couple of thousand years ago when people were living in caves and
>>>>> ****ing
>>>>>> goats, people would "hear" from this fictional god character a lot, and
>>>>>> they'd write whatever they imagined down and would say that it "came from
>>>>>> the god". Later, some dumbass nutcase put their superstitious blatherings
>>>>>> together in a book and called it a bible.
>>>>>
>>>>> They have a dream while sleeping, about building a boat or killing their
>>>>> child and they think that it was God speaking.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now of course, when we have technology and can actually VERIFY the source
>>>>> of
>>>>>> the information, and aren't living in caves and ****ing goats anymore,
>>>>> then
>>>>>> "all of a sudden" the ALL-POWERFUL christian sky pixie "god" character has
>>>>>> been remarkebly quiet.
>>>>>
>>>>> The people now days know that dreams are not God speaking but our own
>>>>> subconscious.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what's up?, he has nothing to say lately, no new passages for his almighty
>>>>>> precious book? maybe a few corrections, like cleaning up the horseshit in
>>>>>> the christian bible, maybe clearing up the text in the bible so that
>>>>>> christian retards don't TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT?
>>>>>> Maybe he could get rid of the contradictions in the christian bible,
>>>>>> although granted, that would only leave about 3 pages left after he was
>>>>>> finished.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> maybe the sky pixie could say, you know what, if you eat some fruit from
>>>>> a
>>>>>> tree, the penalty has been reduced, no more damned to hell for all
>>>>> eternity,
>>>>>> instead, pay a nickel and go on your merry way.
>>>>>
>>>>> The tree of knowledge is (knowledge) not a tree.
>>>>> The tree of life is (knowledge of what life is) not a tree.
>>>>> The snake in the garden of Eden was put there because God thought that it
>>>>> would be a laughable prank.
>>>>> If a God existed, He is laughing His sadistic ass off.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> oh, and hey, no more turning people into pillars of salt, just because
>>>>> they
>>>>>> looked over their shoulder, after all, everyone is entitled to one last
>>>>> look
>>>>>> at their hometown, heck lots of people go on vacations to visit relatives,
>>>>>> friends they still have in their hometowns, so certainly looking over ones
>>>>>> shoulder at their hometown shouldn't be that big a deal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just by not calling His name, one is condemned to an eternal lake of fire.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so, sky pixie, what, nothing new to say lately?, or is it because you
>>>>> never
>>>>>> existed in the first place, and you were nothing more than the bullshit
>>>>>> ramblings of some superstitious cave dwellers and goat ****ers who had
>>>>>> overactive imaginations and needed an imaginary playmate to watch over
>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Eternal death wasn't enough of a deterrent so they invented eternal torture
>>>>> and lake of eternal fire.
>>>>> Yeah, that'll put the fear of God into them!
>>>>
>>>> Would you two like to get a room?
>>>
>>> Andrew, church attendance in my life time in the UK has dropped from around
>>> seventy percent to less than twenty percent today.
>>>
>>> There are millions of non believers out there, not just two.
>>>
>>> You cannot rely on being cute, you have to address atheistic opinions on
>>> religious belief head on if you seek credibility.
>>
>> When they are cogently and rationally expressed I do, as you well know.
>> See below.
>>
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental
>>> despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people
>>> in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and
>>> all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting
>>> human beings.
>>
>> I tend to agree with this when it is taken too far, but it only
>> reflects a part of religious thinking. Christian thinking also
>> encourages us to think ourselves nothing less than the children of God,
>
> I know, but it comes from our insecurity
> since there is nothing, apart from stories written by other humans,
> to suggest that there is a god and we are it's children.

You believe it comes from our insecurity. And that's fair enough. It
isn't relevant to the point though, which shows that Russell's critique
is woefully one-sided.

>
> An atheist needs more than this before he will accept it

Fair enough - but again that isn't the point. What you do have to
accept is that it is as much a part of Christian belief (if not more
so) than the attitude Russell criticised.

>
>>
>> made in the image of God, and to recognise the potential that implies
>> lies in us and in other human beings.
>
> The other view is that man is arrogant [which he frequently cannot refrain from
> demonstrating]
> and therefore man makes his gods in his OWN image.

One paragraph ago we were insecure. Now we're arrogant. Which is it?

>
> Take a look at all of the known gods, with very few exceptions they
> appear as we do.

Really? Judaism and Islam regard it as blasphemous to depict God at
all. Christians are entirely clear that depictions of God are purely
symbolic. Hindus deliberately depict their gods with a multiplicity of
limbs and in odd colours to make it clear they are NOT like us.

>
> An atheist will ask why this is and draw his own conclusion.

Then the atheist is displaying his ignorance. Christians don't think
God LOOKS like anything.

>
>>
>>
>>> We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We
>>> ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as
>>> we wish,
>>> after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all
>>> these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage;
>>
>> I don't know of any Christian (or Muslim or Jewish) theologian who
>> would demur from this (apart from the phrase referring to "these
>> others"). Russell's values here are thoroughly rooted in the Christian
>> traditions of the society he came from.
>
> I am sure he refers here to religionists in general. I agree about his
> background
> [I m one quarter 'Russell' on my paternal grandmother's side - she was Scottish
> too]. Many are brought up following Christian traditions, I got them at Sunday
> School [I remember being given little stamps to paste into a book each
> time i got a
> questions about Jesus right]. My school was the same as Isaac Newton
> attended for a
> time and we had the parish church opposite where we went for church
> service once a
> week, part of it was in Latin - High Church they called this [arrogance !].
>
> W.W.II was in full swing at the time and we boys prayed for 'the
> glorious victory of
> out troops at the front' - no doubt the German and Italian kids were
> praying to the
> same god for the same thing !
>
> Twice a week we had classes called 'Divinity' and our one Roman
> Catholic boy had to
> sit in the corridor during these sessions - I think this is what first had me
> questioning the whole gambit.

I can entirely understand that. It was one of the things that led me,
when I was a child, to decide that there was no god and that I was an
atheist.

>
>>
>>> it does not
>>> need a regretful hankering after the past,
>>
>> Christianity (and Islam and Judaism) look forward to a glorious future
>> - not just in the afterlife, but here on Earth. We would thoroughly
>> endorse this.
>
> But I am sure that you realise that Russell was referring to the
> historical message
> of Christianity and it's claims from the past, most of which can not be
> replicated
> today, such as miracles and chatting, one on one, with a god, like
> Moses claimed he
> did

I do - but as I keep saying, Russell was entirely subjective - indeed
irrational - in his approach to religion, seeing only one side of any
coin that religion had to offer; and always the negatives.

>
>>
>>
>>> or a fettering of the free
>>> intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. (Bertrand Russell
>>> W.N.C.p23)
>>
>> Russell had a peculiarly jaundiced view of religion.
>
> I prefer to call his views practical rather than jaundiced
>
> I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not believe
> in God and
> suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And if there were a God,
> I think it
> very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be
> offended by those
> who doubt his existence. (Bertrand Russell)

Err well exactly. The first sentence is not surprising because he's
right in the second.

>
> He has a valid pint. The uneasiness does not come from the god itself
> but from it's
> followers who crave for larger gatherings under the same roof and fear
> those that
> gather under different roofs, even if the rituals are only slightly different.
>
> I was taken to sunday school by an elder female cousin and on the way to the
> Methodist chapel we had to pass by the Congregational chapel and I
> remember as a
> seven year old asking her why we didn't go there instead; her response was to
> quicken the pace, lower her head and mumble something I could never really
> understand - another question mark for me about religions.
>
> Have good week

I can't but agree with your critique here. Sectarianism of this kind
has been a blight on Christianity that I wouldn't seek to understate or
deny. The damage it has done has been immeasurable. At the same time -
look at the abusive language that is heaped on Christian believers by
some atheists in this group. In what way is that different?

>
> Bob

 

[bob young]

Andrew wrote:

> On 2008-01-28 05:42:01 +0000, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> said:
>
> >
> >
> > Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> On 2008-01-27 02:34:02 +0000, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> said:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Andrew wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2008-01-26 20:56:52 +0000, "Ghamph" <ghamph@localnet.com> said:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" <killgod@killgod.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:13pn27f1lfvd127@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A couple of thousand years ago when people were living in caves and
> >>>>> ****ing
> >>>>>> goats, people would "hear" from this fictional god character a lot, and
> >>>>>> they'd write whatever they imagined down and would say that it "came from
> >>>>>> the god". Later, some dumbass nutcase put their superstitious blatherings
> >>>>>> together in a book and called it a bible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They have a dream while sleeping, about building a boat or killing their
> >>>>> child and they think that it was God speaking.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now of course, when we have technology and can actually VERIFY the source
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>> the information, and aren't living in caves and ****ing goats anymore,
> >>>>> then
> >>>>>> "all of a sudden" the ALL-POWERFUL christian sky pixie "god" character has
> >>>>>> been remarkebly quiet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The people now days know that dreams are not God speaking but our own
> >>>>> subconscious.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> what's up?, he has nothing to say lately, no new passages for his almighty
> >>>>>> precious book? maybe a few corrections, like cleaning up the horseshit in
> >>>>>> the christian bible, maybe clearing up the text in the bible so that
> >>>>>> christian retards don't TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT?
> >>>>>> Maybe he could get rid of the contradictions in the christian bible,
> >>>>>> although granted, that would only leave about 3 pages left after he was
> >>>>>> finished.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Exactly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> maybe the sky pixie could say, you know what, if you eat some fruit from
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>> tree, the penalty has been reduced, no more damned to hell for all
> >>>>> eternity,
> >>>>>> instead, pay a nickel and go on your merry way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The tree of knowledge is (knowledge) not a tree.
> >>>>> The tree of life is (knowledge of what life is) not a tree.
> >>>>> The snake in the garden of Eden was put there because God thought that it
> >>>>> would be a laughable prank.
> >>>>> If a God existed, He is laughing His sadistic ass off.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> oh, and hey, no more turning people into pillars of salt, just because
> >>>>> they
> >>>>>> looked over their shoulder, after all, everyone is entitled to one last
> >>>>> look
> >>>>>> at their hometown, heck lots of people go on vacations to visit relatives,
> >>>>>> friends they still have in their hometowns, so certainly looking over ones
> >>>>>> shoulder at their hometown shouldn't be that big a deal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just by not calling His name, one is condemned to an eternal lake of fire.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> so, sky pixie, what, nothing new to say lately?, or is it because you
> >>>>> never
> >>>>>> existed in the first place, and you were nothing more than the bullshit
> >>>>>> ramblings of some superstitious cave dwellers and goat ****ers who had
> >>>>>> overactive imaginations and needed an imaginary playmate to watch over
> >>>>> them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Eternal death wasn't enough of a deterrent so they invented eternal torture
> >>>>> and lake of eternal fire.
> >>>>> Yeah, that'll put the fear of God into them!
> >>>>
> >>>> Would you two like to get a room?
> >>>
> >>> Andrew, church attendance in my life time in the UK has dropped from around
> >>> seventy percent to less than twenty percent today.
> >>>
> >>> There are millions of non believers out there, not just two.
> >>>
> >>> You cannot rely on being cute, you have to address atheistic opinions on
> >>> religious belief head on if you seek credibility.
> >>
> >> When they are cogently and rationally expressed I do, as you well know.
> >> See below.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Bob
> >>>
> >>> The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental
> >>> despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people
> >>> in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and
> >>> all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting
> >>> human beings.
> >>
> >> I tend to agree with this when it is taken too far, but it only
> >> reflects a part of religious thinking. Christian thinking also
> >> encourages us to think ourselves nothing less than the children of God,
> >
> > I know, but it comes from our insecurity
> > since there is nothing, apart from stories written by other humans,
> > to suggest that there is a god and we are it's children.
>
> You believe it comes from our insecurity. And that's fair enough. It
> isn't relevant to the point though, which shows that Russell's critique
> is woefully one-sided.

Well this was his point which can hardly be called one sided....

When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable
sinners, and
all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human
beings.

I think he majors here on 'self-respect'

>
>
> >
> > An atheist needs more than this before he will accept it
>
> Fair enough - but again that isn't the point. What you do have to
> accept is that it is as much a part of Christian belief (if not more
> so) than the attitude Russell criticised.
>
> >
> >>
> >> made in the image of God, and to recognise the potential that implies
> >> lies in us and in other human beings.
> >
> > The other view is that man is arrogant [which he frequently cannot refrain from
> > demonstrating]
> > and therefore man makes his gods in his OWN image.
>
> One paragraph ago we were insecure. Now we're arrogant. Which is it?

If you take another look you will see I said 'The other view is...............'

so the assumption must be 'both'

> >
> > Take a look at all of the known gods, with very few exceptions they
> > appear as we do.
>
> Really? Judaism and Islam regard it as blasphemous to depict God at
> all. Christians are entirely clear that depictions of God are purely
> symbolic.

Only in latter years as the edifice crumbles in the face of endless logic. I was
taught
over and over and over that 'man was created in gods' image', and many are still are

> Hindus deliberately depict their gods with a multiplicity of
> limbs and in odd colours to make it clear they are NOT like us.

They are basically human shape, embellished because they need their gods to stand out.

Frankly you seem to be splitting hairs.

>
>
> >
> > An atheist will ask why this is and draw his own conclusion.
>
> Then the atheist is displaying his ignorance. Christians don't think
> God LOOKS like anything.

See above my point about man being created in god's image. Christians certainly do
not need to think about the appearance of their god, all they need to do is think of
something like themselves. Or alternatively go to any chapel and there you will find
a depiction of a bearded Jesus - the son of god.

You seem to be weaving and dodging on the issue of your God's appearance

Of course the truth is non of them appear like anything at all in the spiritual sense
as that are all manufactured by man, either in their minds or carved out of stone or
wood.

>
>
> >>
> >>
> >>> We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We
> >>> ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as
> >>> we wish,
> >>> after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all
> >>> these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage;
> >>
> >> I don't know of any Christian (or Muslim or Jewish) theologian who
> >> would demur from this (apart from the phrase referring to "these
> >> others"). Russell's values here are thoroughly rooted in the Christian
> >> traditions of the society he came from.
> >
> > I am sure he refers here to religionists in general. I agree about his
> > background
> > [I m one quarter 'Russell' on my paternal grandmother's side - she was Scottish
> > too]. Many are brought up following Christian traditions, I got them at Sunday
> > School [I remember being given little stamps to paste into a book each
> > time i got a
> > questions about Jesus right]. My school was the same as Isaac Newton
> > attended for a
> > time and we had the parish church opposite where we went for church
> > service once a
> > week, part of it was in Latin - High Church they called this [arrogance !].
> >
> > W.W.II was in full swing at the time and we boys prayed for 'the
> > glorious victory of
> > out troops at the front' - no doubt the German and Italian kids were
> > praying to the
> > same god for the same thing !
> >
> > Twice a week we had classes called 'Divinity' and our one Roman
> > Catholic boy had to
> > sit in the corridor during these sessions - I think this is what first had me
> > questioning the whole gambit.
>
> I can entirely understand that. It was one of the things that led me,
> when I was a child, to decide that there was no god and that I was an
> atheist.
>
> >
> >>
> >>> it does not
> >>> need a regretful hankering after the past,
> >>
> >> Christianity (and Islam and Judaism) look forward to a glorious future
> >> - not just in the afterlife, but here on Earth. We would thoroughly
> >> endorse this.
> >
> > But I am sure that you realise that Russell was referring to the
> > historical message
> > of Christianity and it's claims from the past, most of which can not be
> > replicated
> > today, such as miracles and chatting, one on one, with a god, like
> > Moses claimed he
> > did
>
> I do - but as I keep saying, Russell was entirely subjective - indeed
> irrational - in his approach to religion, seeing only one side of any
> coin that religion had to offer; and always the negatives.

Wrong again, he would have agreed with me about the following positive sides of
religion:

Communal benefits
Emancipation of fear
Something to turn to and pray to when things go wrong
A provider of ritual for; marriage, births and deaths
A means of ameliorating the fear of death
A provider of a unifying feeling among families and settlements

He and I would both agree on the above whilst at the same time repeating
that all the gods along with religions providing the above, are imaginary.

That is what atheism is, atheism is not attacking that list above,
as they are all fully understood to be basic human needs and desires.

The imaginary gods simply produce the all important focal point, or the 'glue that
cements the belief together' if you like

>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> or a fettering of the free
> >>> intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. (Bertrand Russell
> >>> W.N.C.p23)
> >>
> >> Russell had a peculiarly jaundiced view of religion.
> >
> > I prefer to call his views practical rather than jaundiced
> >
> > I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not believe
> > in God and
> > suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And if there were a God,
> > I think it
> > very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be
> > offended by those
> > who doubt his existence. (Bertrand Russell)
>
> Err well exactly. The first sentence is not surprising because he's
> right in the second.
>
> >
> > He has a valid pint. The uneasiness does not come from the god itself
> > but from it's
> > followers who crave for larger gatherings under the same roof and fear
> > those that
> > gather under different roofs, even if the rituals are only slightly different.
> >
> > I was taken to sunday school by an elder female cousin and on the way to the
> > Methodist chapel we had to pass by the Congregational chapel and I
> > remember as a
> > seven year old asking her why we didn't go there instead; her response was to
> > quicken the pace, lower her head and mumble something I could never really
> > understand - another question mark for me about religions.
> >
> > Have good week
>
> I can't but agree with your critique here. Sectarianism of this kind
> has been a blight on Christianity that I wouldn't seek to understate or
> deny. The damage it has done has been immeasurable. At the same time -
> look at the abusive language that is heaped on Christian believers by
> some atheists in this group. In what way is that different?

The majority of the abuse comes from religionists
when they get over frustrated at being fed endless amounts of
logic and common sense and find they cannot answer any other way.

[the weirdo's who come here from both sides are few and far between.]

Bob

>
>
> >
> > Bob

 

[Andrew]

On 2008-01-29 07:36:01 +0000, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> said:

>>>> I tend to agree with this when it is taken too far, but it only
>>>> reflects a part of religious thinking. Christian thinking also
>>>> encourages us to think ourselves nothing less than the children of God,
>>>
>>> I know, but it comes from our insecurity
>>> since there is nothing, apart from stories written by other humans,
>>> to suggest that there is a god and we are it's children.
>>
>> You believe it comes from our insecurity. And that's fair enough. It
>> isn't relevant to the point though, which shows that Russell's critique
>> is woefully one-sided.
>
> Well this was his point which can hardly be called one sided....
>
> When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they
> are miserable
> sinners, and
> all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of
> self-respecting human
> beings.
>
> I think he majors here on 'self-respect'

It's one-sided in the sense that he does not recognise the self-respect
that goes with accepting that we are children of God, loved by God to
love each other. He also ignores completely (because it doesn't suit
his argument) that Christians are not miserable sinners (and I'm not
aware of the liturgy he's referring to here) but REDEEMED sinners.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> An atheist needs more than this before he will accept it
>>
>> Fair enough - but again that isn't the point. What you do have to
>> accept is that it is as much a part of Christian belief (if not more
>> so) than the attitude Russell criticised.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> made in the image of God, and to recognise the potential that implies
>>>> lies in us and in other human beings.
>>>
>>> The other view is that man is arrogant [which he frequently cannot refrain from
>>> demonstrating]
>>> and therefore man makes his gods in his OWN image.
>>
>> One paragraph ago we were insecure. Now we're arrogant. Which is it?
>
> If you take another look you will see I said 'The other view
> is...............'
>
> so the assumption must be 'both'

Arrogant AND insecure - possible, I grant you, but a somewhat
unconvincing combination.

>
>>>
>>> Take a look at all of the known gods, with very few exceptions they
>>> appear as we do.
>>
>> Really? Judaism and Islam regard it as blasphemous to depict God at
>> all. Christians are entirely clear that depictions of God are purely
>> symbolic.
>
> Only in latter years as the edifice crumbles in the face of endless
> logic. I was
> taught
> over and over and over that 'man was created in gods' image', and many
> are still are\

And so we are. Now, go back to where it says that in the Bible (Gen
1:26) and read the stuff that goes before it. What does it say about
what God looks like?

>
>> Hindus deliberately depict their gods with a multiplicity of
>> limbs and in odd colours to make it clear they are NOT like us.
>
> They are basically human shape, embellished because they need their
> gods to stand out.
>
> Frankly you seem to be splitting hairs.

Not at all - the differences are quite specific and intended to show
that these images are NOT to be taken as literal representations.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> An atheist will ask why this is and draw his own conclusion.
>>
>> Then the atheist is displaying his ignorance. Christians don't think
>> God LOOKS like anything.
>
> See above my point about man being created in god's image. Christians
> certainly do
> not need to think about the appearance of their god, all they need to
> do is think of
> something like themselves. Or alternatively go to any chapel and there
> you will find
> a depiction of a bearded Jesus - the son of god.
>
> You seem to be weaving and dodging on the issue of your God's appearance

No I'm not. You are using the world 'image' in too literal a way, and
one that simply does not fit the context in which it is used nor the
religious tradition (2nd Temple Judaism) that created it.

>
> Of course the truth is non of them appear like anything at all in the
> spiritual sense
> as that are all manufactured by man, either in their minds or carved
> out of stone or
> wood.
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We
>>>>> ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as
>>>>> we wish,
>>>>> after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all
>>>>> these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage;
>>>>
>>>> I don't know of any Christian (or Muslim or Jewish) theologian who
>>>> would demur from this (apart from the phrase referring to "these
>>>> others"). Russell's values here are thoroughly rooted in the Christian
>>>> traditions of the society he came from.
>>>
>>> I am sure he refers here to religionists in general. I agree about his
>>> background
>>> [I m one quarter 'Russell' on my paternal grandmother's side - she was Scottish
>>> too]. Many are brought up following Christian traditions, I got them at Sunday
>>> School [I remember being given little stamps to paste into a book each
>>> time i got a
>>> questions about Jesus right]. My school was the same as Isaac Newton
>>> attended for a
>>> time and we had the parish church opposite where we went for church
>>> service once a
>>> week, part of it was in Latin - High Church they called this [arrogance !].
>>>
>>> W.W.II was in full swing at the time and we boys prayed for 'the
>>> glorious victory of
>>> out troops at the front' - no doubt the German and Italian kids were
>>> praying to the
>>> same god for the same thing !
>>>
>>> Twice a week we had classes called 'Divinity' and our one Roman
>>> Catholic boy had to
>>> sit in the corridor during these sessions - I think this is what first had me
>>> questioning the whole gambit.
>>
>> I can entirely understand that. It was one of the things that led me,
>> when I was a child, to decide that there was no god and that I was an
>> atheist.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> it does not
>>>>> need a regretful hankering after the past,
>>>>
>>>> Christianity (and Islam and Judaism) look forward to a glorious future
>>>> - not just in the afterlife, but here on Earth. We would thoroughly
>>>> endorse this.
>>>
>>> But I am sure that you realise that Russell was referring to the
>>> historical message
>>> of Christianity and it's claims from the past, most of which can not be
>>> replicated
>>> today, such as miracles and chatting, one on one, with a god, like
>>> Moses claimed he
>>> did
>>
>> I do - but as I keep saying, Russell was entirely subjective - indeed
>> irrational - in his approach to religion, seeing only one side of any
>> coin that religion had to offer; and always the negatives.
>
> Wrong again, he would have agreed with me about the following positive
> sides of
> religion:
>
> Communal benefits
> Emancipation of fear
> Something to turn to and pray to when things go wrong
> A provider of ritual for; marriage, births and deaths
> A means of ameliorating the fear of death
> A provider of a unifying feeling among families and settlements

Glad to hear it. Can you find citations for that from Russell's oeuvre?

>
> He and I would both agree on the above whilst at the same time repeating
> that all the gods along with religions providing the above, are imaginary.

The religion cannot be imaginary - but I think I know what you mean.

>
> That is what atheism is, atheism is not attacking that list above,
> as they are all fully understood to be basic human needs and desires.
>
> The imaginary gods simply produce the all important focal point, or the
> 'glue that
> cements the belief together' if you like
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> or a fettering of the free
>>>>> intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. (Bertrand Russell
>>>>> W.N.C.p23)
>>>>
>>>> Russell had a peculiarly jaundiced view of religion.
>>>
>>> I prefer to call his views practical rather than jaundiced
>>>
>>> I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not believe
>>> in God and
>>> suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And if there were a God,
>>> I think it
>>> very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be
>>> offended by those
>>> who doubt his existence. (Bertrand Russell)
>>
>> Err well exactly. The first sentence is not surprising because he's
>> right in the second.
>>
>>>
>>> He has a valid pint. The uneasiness does not come from the god itself
>>> but from it's
>>> followers who crave for larger gatherings under the same roof and fear
>>> those that
>>> gather under different roofs, even if the rituals are only slightly different.
>>>
>>> I was taken to sunday school by an elder female cousin and on the way to the
>>> Methodist chapel we had to pass by the Congregational chapel and I
>>> remember as a
>>> seven year old asking her why we didn't go there instead; her response was to
>>> quicken the pace, lower her head and mumble something I could never really
>>> understand - another question mark for me about religions.
>>>
>>> Have good week
>>
>> I can't but agree with your critique here. Sectarianism of this kind
>> has been a blight on Christianity that I wouldn't seek to understate or
>> deny. The damage it has done has been immeasurable. At the same time -
>> look at the abusive language that is heaped on Christian believers by
>> some atheists in this group. In what way is that different?
>
> The majority of the abuse comes from religionists
> when they get over frustrated at being fed endless amounts of
> logic and common sense and find they cannot answer any other way.

Oddly I get the same from some atheists when their first facile
argument fails to have me slapping my head and saying "My God you're
right! How could I have missed that?"

>
> [the weirdo's who come here from both sides are few and far between.]

 

[SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim]

>>
>> The majority of the abuse comes from religionists
>> when they get over frustrated at being fed endless amounts of
>> logic and common sense and find they cannot answer any other way.
>
> Oddly I get the same from some atheists when their first facile argument
> fails to have me slapping my head and saying "My God you're right! How
> could I have missed that?"

to be a christian, you must ignore all reason, logic and common sense

 

[bob young]

Andrew wrote:

> On 2008-01-29 07:36:01 +0000, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> said:
>
> >>>> I tend to agree with this when it is taken too far, but it only
> >>>> reflects a part of religious thinking. Christian thinking also
> >>>> encourages us to think ourselves nothing less than the children of God,
> >>>
> >>> I know, but it comes from our insecurity
> >>> since there is nothing, apart from stories written by other humans,
> >>> to suggest that there is a god and we are it's children.
> >>
> >> You believe it comes from our insecurity. And that's fair enough. It
> >> isn't relevant to the point though, which shows that Russell's critique
> >> is woefully one-sided.
> >
> > Well this was his point which can hardly be called one sided....
> >
> > When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they
> > are miserable
> > sinners, and
> > all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of
> > self-respecting human
> > beings.
> >
> > I think he majors here on 'self-respect'
>
> It's one-sided in the sense that he does not recognise the self-respect
> that goes with accepting that we are children of God, loved by God to
> love each other. He also ignores completely (because it doesn't suit
> his argument) that Christians are not miserable sinners (and I'm not
> aware of the liturgy he's referring to here) but REDEEMED sinners.

The word miserable simply emphasizes the sin aspect.
No-one could argue with 'sinner's used on it's own. It
really is a true reflection of one of the main aspects
of Christianity.

One might ask,
'Were there no bible and no sin what would be left of that religion ?

>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> An atheist needs more than this before he will accept it
> >>
> >> Fair enough - but again that isn't the point. What you do have to
> >> accept is that it is as much a part of Christian belief (if not more
> >> so) than the attitude Russell criticised.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> made in the image of God, and to recognise the potential that implies
> >>>> lies in us and in other human beings.
> >>>
> >>> The other view is that man is arrogant [which he frequently cannot refrain from
> >>> demonstrating]
> >>> and therefore man makes his gods in his OWN image.
> >>
> >> One paragraph ago we were insecure. Now we're arrogant. Which is it?
> >
> > If you take another look you will see I said 'The other view
> > is...............'
> >
> > so the assumption must be 'both'
>
> Arrogant AND insecure - possible, I grant you, but a somewhat
> unconvincing combination.

Not if applied independently.

Arrogance is apparent to someone like me when people insist
that things exist and refuse to consider otherwise when they have no proof.

They are intelligent and when dealing with anything other than their deity proof is
required.

Insecurity is the basis of religions. If one feels insecure today just try to imagine
how more insecure early man felt in his comparative ignorance. Prior to 1400 I think it
was in England your home was what you inherited or built, but you had no rights to the
ground it stood on or the building itself, people lived in fear of losing their home to
a group moving in and taking over.

The fear of a god was one way to provide a modicum of protection

I believe the earliest known English book is called 'The Pastons' I think it was
written back in around 1500 by Mrs. Paston. They lived in a large Hall in what is now
Norfolk County and I clearly remember her concern in one part because they were visiting
London leaving the house in charge of the servants not knowing when they returned
whether it might be taken over by others. As it turned out it wasn't. I no longer have
this book but intent to get another copy. We read the Bible covering a period over two
thousand years ago, and the oldest known in England book is less than 600 years old. I
think if you enter 'oldest book' in a search engine it will come up with The Pastons'

So as we go backwards from the year 1500 year by year we can expect a worsening of
ordinary man's security, so no wonder insecurity has become a fairly basic instinct in
us, but virtually every insecure aspect of early life has been corrected by modern man
with his elaborate Laws and associated enforcement. One striking exception though can
be seen on newsreels right now from Kenya - the perfect instinctive throw back to
tribalism gone mad.

>
> >
> >>>
> >>> Take a look at all of the known gods, with very few exceptions they
> >>> appear as we do.
> >>
> >> Really? Judaism and Islam regard it as blasphemous to depict God at
> >> all. Christians are entirely clear that depictions of God are purely
> >> symbolic.
> >
> > Only in latter years as the edifice crumbles in the face of endless
> > logic. I was
> > taught
> > over and over and over that 'man was created in gods' image', and many
> > are still are\
>
> And so we are. Now, go back to where it says that in the Bible (Gen
> 1:26) and read the stuff that goes before it. What does it say about
> what God looks like?

Sorry I do not have a Bible handy

>
>
>
> >> Hindus deliberately depict their gods with a multiplicity of
> >> limbs and in odd colours to make it clear they are NOT like us.
> >
> > They are basically human shape, embellished because they need their
> > gods to stand out.
> >
> > Frankly you seem to be splitting hairs.
>
> Not at all - the differences are quite specific and intended to show
> that these images are NOT to be taken as literal representations.

Quite so - I have yet to be convinced of a literal god of any kind

>
>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>>
> >>> An atheist will ask why this is and draw his own conclusion.
> >>
> >> Then the atheist is displaying his ignorance. Christians don't think
> >> God LOOKS like anything.
> >
> > See above my point about man being created in god's image. Christians
> > certainly do
> > not need to think about the appearance of their god, all they need to
> > do is think of
> > something like themselves. Or alternatively go to any chapel and there
> > you will find
> > a depiction of a bearded Jesus - the son of god.
> >
> > You seem to be weaving and dodging on the issue of your God's appearance
>
> No I'm not. You are using the world 'image' in too literal a way, and
> one that simply does not fit the context in which it is used nor the
> religious tradition (2nd Temple Judaism) that created it.

So long ago what should we expect? I know what I was taught and what is still being
taught. Why does god allow so many of these multfractional teachings about him?

>
>
> >
> > Of course the truth is non of them appear like anything at all in the
> > spiritual sense
> > as that are all manufactured by man, either in their minds or carved
> > out of stone or
> > wood.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We
> >>>>> ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as
> >>>>> we wish,
> >>>>> after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all
> >>>>> these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage;
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't know of any Christian (or Muslim or Jewish) theologian who
> >>>> would demur from this (apart from the phrase referring to "these
> >>>> others"). Russell's values here are thoroughly rooted in the Christian
> >>>> traditions of the society he came from.
> >>>
> >>> I am sure he refers here to religionists in general. I agree about his
> >>> background
> >>> [I m one quarter 'Russell' on my paternal grandmother's side - she was Scottish
> >>> too]. Many are brought up following Christian traditions, I got them at Sunday
> >>> School [I remember being given little stamps to paste into a book each
> >>> time i got a
> >>> questions about Jesus right]. My school was the same as Isaac Newton
> >>> attended for a
> >>> time and we had the parish church opposite where we went for church
> >>> service once a
> >>> week, part of it was in Latin - High Church they called this [arrogance !].
> >>>
> >>> W.W.II was in full swing at the time and we boys prayed for 'the
> >>> glorious victory of
> >>> out troops at the front' - no doubt the German and Italian kids were
> >>> praying to the
> >>> same god for the same thing !
> >>>
> >>> Twice a week we had classes called 'Divinity' and our one Roman
> >>> Catholic boy had to
> >>> sit in the corridor during these sessions - I think this is what first had me
> >>> questioning the whole gambit.
> >>
> >> I can entirely understand that. It was one of the things that led me,
> >> when I was a child, to decide that there was no god and that I was an
> >> atheist.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> it does not
> >>>>> need a regretful hankering after the past,
> >>>>
> >>>> Christianity (and Islam and Judaism) look forward to a glorious future
> >>>> - not just in the afterlife, but here on Earth. We would thoroughly
> >>>> endorse this.
> >>>
> >>> But I am sure that you realise that Russell was referring to the
> >>> historical message
> >>> of Christianity and it's claims from the past, most of which can not be
> >>> replicated
> >>> today, such as miracles and chatting, one on one, with a god, like
> >>> Moses claimed he
> >>> did
> >>
> >> I do - but as I keep saying, Russell was entirely subjective - indeed
> >> irrational - in his approach to religion, seeing only one side of any
> >> coin that religion had to offer; and always the negatives.
> >
> > Wrong again, he would have agreed with me about the following positive
> > sides of
> > religion:
> >
> > Communal benefits
> > Emancipation of fear
> > Something to turn to and pray to when things go wrong
> > A provider of ritual for; marriage, births and deaths
> > A means of ameliorating the fear of death
> > A provider of a unifying feeling among families and settlements
>
> Glad to hear it. Can you find citations for that from Russell's oeuvre?

No but I am in no doubt he would have agreed as he never attacks those positive aspects
of the human psyche listed above above

>
>
> >
> > He and I would both agree on the above whilst at the same time repeating
> > that all the gods along with religions providing the above, are imaginary.
>
> The religion cannot be imaginary - but I think I know what you mean.
>
> >
> > That is what atheism is, atheism is not attacking that list above,
> > as they are all fully understood to be basic human needs and desires.
> >
> > The imaginary gods simply produce the all important focal point, or the
> > 'glue that
> > cements the belief together' if you like
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> or a fettering of the free
> >>>>> intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. (Bertrand Russell
> >>>>> W.N.C.p23)
> >>>>
> >>>> Russell had a peculiarly jaundiced view of religion.
> >>>
> >>> I prefer to call his views practical rather than jaundiced
> >>>
> >>> I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not believe
> >>> in God and
> >>> suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And if there were a God,
> >>> I think it
> >>> very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be
> >>> offended by those
> >>> who doubt his existence. (Bertrand Russell)
> >>
> >> Err well exactly. The first sentence is not surprising because he's
> >> right in the second.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> He has a valid pint. The uneasiness does not come from the god itself
> >>> but from it's
> >>> followers who crave for larger gatherings under the same roof and fear
> >>> those that
> >>> gather under different roofs, even if the rituals are only slightly different.
> >>>
> >>> I was taken to sunday school by an elder female cousin and on the way to the
> >>> Methodist chapel we had to pass by the Congregational chapel and I
> >>> remember as a
> >>> seven year old asking her why we didn't go there instead; her response was to
> >>> quicken the pace, lower her head and mumble something I could never really
> >>> understand - another question mark for me about religions.
> >>>
> >>> Have good week
> >>
> >> I can't but agree with your critique here. Sectarianism of this kind
> >> has been a blight on Christianity that I wouldn't seek to understate or
> >> deny. The damage it has done has been immeasurable. At the same time -
> >> look at the abusive language that is heaped on Christian believers by
> >> some atheists in this group. In what way is that different?
> >
> > The majority of the abuse comes from religionists
> > when they get over frustrated at being fed endless amounts of
> > logic and common sense and find they cannot answer any other way.
>
> Oddly I get the same from some atheists when their first facile
> argument fails to have me slapping my head and saying "My God you're
> right! How could I have missed that?"

Yes the two sides seldom agree. Both approach the issues from a completely different
perspective
and i have yet to be told anything about present day religion that has me slapping my
head and saying
- How could I have missed that?"

Mind you there's always a first time, or so they say.

Bob

>
>
> >
> > [the weirdo's who come here from both sides are few and far between.]

 

[bob young]

SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim wrote:

> >>
> >> The majority of the abuse comes from religionists
> >> when they get over frustrated at being fed endless amounts of
> >> logic and common sense and find they cannot answer any other way.
> >
> > Oddly I get the same from some atheists when their first facile argument

I must drop back in here again Andrew. You say above 'first facile
argument'
- why the insulting word 'facile'?

Usually the first thing an atheist asks is for the god in question to be
proven by the propagator of that god.

Can you explain what is 'facile' about such a question?




>
> > fails to have me slapping my head and saying "My God you're right! How
> > could I have missed that?"
>
> to be a christian, you must ignore all reason, logic and common sense

 

[Lee]

"SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" <killgod@killgod.com> wrote in message
news:13pn27f1lfvd127@corp.supernews.com...
>
> A couple of thousand years ago when people were living in caves and
> ****ing
> goats, people would "hear" from this fictional god character a lot, and
> they'd write whatever they imagined down and would say that it "came from
> the god". Later, some dumbass nutcase put their superstitious blatherings
> together in a book and called it a bible.


The people that complied the four gospels were certainly not dumbass
nutcases, just the opposite in fact. They managed to compile ancient
writtings into one book, the bible and used it to control the people that
they ruled over by manipulating the inherant human fear of death.



> Now of course, when we have technology and can actually VERIFY the source
> of
> the information, and aren't living in caves and ****ing goats anymore,
> then
> "all of a sudden" the ALL-POWERFUL christian sky pixie "god" character has
> been remarkebly quiet.
>
> what's up?, he has nothing to say lately, no new passages for his almighty
> precious book? maybe a few corrections, like cleaning up the horseshit in
> the christian bible, maybe clearing up the text in the bible so that
> christian retards don't TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT?
> Maybe he could get rid of the contradictions in the christian bible,
> although granted, that would only leave about 3 pages left after he was
> finished. .
>
> maybe the sky pixie could say, you know what, if you eat some fruit from a
> tree, the penalty has been reduced, no more damned to hell for all
> eternity,
> instead, pay a nickel and go on your merry way.
>
> oh, and hey, no more turning people into pillars of salt, just because
> they
> looked over their shoulder, after all, everyone is entitled to one last
> look
> at their hometown, heck lots of people go on vacations to visit relatives,
> friends they still have in their hometowns, so certainly looking over ones
> shoulder at their hometown shouldn't be that big a deal.
>
> so, sky pixie, what, nothing new to say lately?, or is it because you
> never
> existed in the first place, and you were nothing more than the bullshit
> ramblings of some superstitious cave dwellers and goat ****ers who had
> overactive imaginations and needed an imaginary playmate to watch over
> them.
>
>

The fact that the people who compiled the bible pick and chose from earlier
writings so that the book would fit with their new religion completely
destroys it as the words of a god. It is at best a yardstick by which to
measure human social evolution from tribal groups to the importance of the
individual.

 

[Lee]

"Snowman" <jkelley@zoomnet.net> wrote in message
news:c5432ccc-fa42-47b4-8d82-ccb5e73361c6@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> The Romans were cave dwellers? The Classical Greeks

Romulus and Remus were reputed to live with wolves and Spartan kids lived
rough from the age of Seven, it seems the classical world viewed cave
dwelling with more esteem than our present day society does.

 

[n5hsr@comcast.net]

"Lee" <me@localhost> wrote in message
news:47b68eff$0$8421$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" <killgod@killgod.com> wrote in message
> news:13pn27f1lfvd127@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> A couple of thousand years ago when people were living in caves and
>> ****ing
>> goats, people would "hear" from this fictional god character a lot, and
>> they'd write whatever they imagined down and would say that it "came from
>> the god". Later, some dumbass nutcase put their superstitious blatherings
>> together in a book and called it a bible.
>
>
> The people that complied the four gospels were certainly not dumbass
> nutcases, just the opposite in fact. They managed to compile ancient
> writtings into one book, the bible and used it to control the people that
> they ruled over by manipulating the inherant human fear of death.
>
>
>
>> Now of course, when we have technology and can actually VERIFY the source
>> of
>> the information, and aren't living in caves and ****ing goats anymore,
>> then
>> "all of a sudden" the ALL-POWERFUL christian sky pixie "god" character
>> has been remarkebly quiet.
>>
>> what's up?, he has nothing to say lately, no new passages for his
>> almighty
>> precious book? maybe a few corrections, like cleaning up the horseshit in
>> the christian bible, maybe clearing up the text in the bible so that
>> christian retards don't TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT?
>> Maybe he could get rid of the contradictions in the christian bible,
>> although granted, that would only leave about 3 pages left after he was
>> finished. .
>>
>> maybe the sky pixie could say, you know what, if you eat some fruit from
>> a
>> tree, the penalty has been reduced, no more damned to hell for all
>> eternity,
>> instead, pay a nickel and go on your merry way.
>>
>> oh, and hey, no more turning people into pillars of salt, just because
>> they
>> looked over their shoulder, after all, everyone is entitled to one last
>> look
>> at their hometown, heck lots of people go on vacations to visit
>> relatives,
>> friends they still have in their hometowns, so certainly looking over
>> ones
>> shoulder at their hometown shouldn't be that big a deal.
>>
>> so, sky pixie, what, nothing new to say lately?, or is it because you
>> never
>> existed in the first place, and you were nothing more than the bullshit
>> ramblings of some superstitious cave dwellers and goat ****ers who had
>> overactive imaginations and needed an imaginary playmate to watch over
>> them.
>>
>>
>
> The fact that the people who compiled the bible pick and chose from
> earlier writings so that the book would fit with their new religion
> completely destroys it as the words of a god. It is at best a yardstick by
> which to measure human social evolution from tribal groups to the
> importance of the individual.
>
>
>

KillGod is so anti-God that she's gone into my block list. I block ranters
and Leftards. You just made the Leftard category with the above statement.
You must be a member of the American Communist Liberation Union. You're
just as bad as the Rosenbergs.

Charles the Curmudgeon

 

[Lee]

<n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5NKdnSFERq9WdyvanZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Lee" <me@localhost> wrote in message
> news:47b68eff$0$8421$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" <killgod@killgod.com> wrote in message
>> news:13pn27f1lfvd127@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> A couple of thousand years ago when people were living in caves and
>>> ****ing
>>> goats, people would "hear" from this fictional god character a lot, and
>>> they'd write whatever they imagined down and would say that it "came
>>> from
>>> the god". Later, some dumbass nutcase put their superstitious
>>> blatherings together in a book and called it a bible.
>>
>>
>> The people that complied the four gospels were certainly not dumbass
>> nutcases, just the opposite in fact. They managed to compile ancient
>> writtings into one book, the bible and used it to control the people that
>> they ruled over by manipulating the inherant human fear of death.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Now of course, when we have technology and can actually VERIFY the
>>> source of
>>> the information, and aren't living in caves and ****ing goats anymore,
>>> then
>>> "all of a sudden" the ALL-POWERFUL christian sky pixie "god" character
>>> has been remarkebly quiet.
>>>
>>> what's up?, he has nothing to say lately, no new passages for his
>>> almighty
>>> precious book? maybe a few corrections, like cleaning up the horseshit
>>> in
>>> the christian bible, maybe clearing up the text in the bible so that
>>> christian retards don't TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT?
>>> Maybe he could get rid of the contradictions in the christian bible,
>>> although granted, that would only leave about 3 pages left after he was
>>> finished. .
>>>
>>> maybe the sky pixie could say, you know what, if you eat some fruit from
>>> a
>>> tree, the penalty has been reduced, no more damned to hell for all
>>> eternity,
>>> instead, pay a nickel and go on your merry way.
>>>
>>> oh, and hey, no more turning people into pillars of salt, just because
>>> they
>>> looked over their shoulder, after all, everyone is entitled to one last
>>> look
>>> at their hometown, heck lots of people go on vacations to visit
>>> relatives,
>>> friends they still have in their hometowns, so certainly looking over
>>> ones
>>> shoulder at their hometown shouldn't be that big a deal.
>>>
>>> so, sky pixie, what, nothing new to say lately?, or is it because you
>>> never
>>> existed in the first place, and you were nothing more than the bullshit
>>> ramblings of some superstitious cave dwellers and goat ****ers who had
>>> overactive imaginations and needed an imaginary playmate to watch over
>>> them.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The fact that the people who compiled the bible pick and chose from
>> earlier writings so that the book would fit with their new religion
>> completely destroys it as the words of a god. It is at best a yardstick
>> by which to measure human social evolution from tribal groups to the
>> importance of the individual.
>>
>>
>>
>
> KillGod is so anti-God that she's gone into my block list. I block
> ranters and Leftards. You just made the Leftard category with the above
> statement. You must be a member of the American Communist Liberation
> Union. You're just as bad as the Rosenbergs.
>
> Charles the Curmudgeon


Blocking SheBlew will deprive you of some great posts even if you are
against their content, as for me I unfortununatly am not an American, but my
political affiliations are as volatile as the times in which we live.

 

[SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim]

>
> KillGod is so anti-God that she's gone into my block list. I block
> ranters and Leftards. You just made the Leftard category with the above
> statement. You must be a member of the American Communist Liberation
> Union. You're just as bad as the Rosenbergs.
>
> Charles the Curmudgeon

LMAO, another christian retard down for the count