Guest Dan@V.A. Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:nijot21c4sn80e45unu1lhbc8nk88rksu3@4ax.com... > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:57:00 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > >You are mincing words, even the Largest Mormon Church condemns > >these off-shoot Mormon groups. > > "These off-shoot Mormon groups" are still Christians, and they don't > condemn their own practices, so not all Christians condemn these > practices. Whether you consider them Christian or not is irrelevant. > IOW, there is no characteristics that places a group outside or your notion of Christanity. Even where there is no belief system or nothing nothing in common with the majority of Christians. > > > Certainly, those practicing polygamy > >do not condemn the practice, nor did I say they did. > > They're Christian, and you said ALL Christians condemned the practice, > so you said that they condemned it. > Where is your evidence that they are Christian? > > > Do you imply that > >other Christians condone the practice of polygamy? > > That wasn't your claim. > They worship three different gods and have a different Christ born in a different location. Their Christ was born of another man who had progressed to godhood through the institution and practice of polygamy. Their Mary was one of their god's wives. Through polygamy and having offspring throughout this life and the life to come they can and many will become gods themselves. These gods will be gods over their own world and work out their own plan of salvation for their believers. This is how they justify the practice. This is foreign to any legimate Christian group. Protestant, Catholic or Orthorodox. You are right, they are not Christian. They are heathens. Dan Quote
Guest Dan@V.A. Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message news:5437fmF1uudilU1@mid.individual.net... > > "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:bBKCh.20344$6a.3708@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > > > > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message > > news:5411o6F1u4oblU1@mid.individual.net... > >> > >> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > >> news:8vkCh.12996$O8.6455@bignews2.bellsouth.net... > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > It seems to me that atheist who invade Religious Newsgroups > >> > with their challenges, insults and attacks on Christians and the > >> > Christian Religion are in reality expressing their great hope. > >> > IE _the hope that there is no God. > >> > >> That's nice. > >> > > Given the two choices: > > 1) A CREATOR exist and he created the universe > > 2) There is no god, therefore, the Universe could not > > have been created by a God. > >> > > I believe to the totally _unbiased_ the evidence, > > Which is what, exactly? > > I believe > > comes down on the side of those people who believe in the > > existence of God. > > Why? > > > It may or may _not_ have been the God > > of the Bible. > > Okay, where's the evidence? > Do you really care? I have yet to find an atheist seriously interested. From my experience, I have found that eventually most will resort to personal attacks. The point is Atheist come on Christian NGs with charges, challenges and condemnations of the Christian faith. Since, I don't have any desire to convert anyone, it doesn't matter whether or not anyone agrees. My mother was a devout Christian. I will defend her. But you, I don't care about. The question is why do you care to enough about me to convince me that there is no God? Dan Wood, DDS > -- > Robyn > Resident Witchypoo > BAAWA Knight! > #1557 > > Quote
Guest Jeff Whittaker Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:47:46 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message >news:5437fmF1uudilU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> news:bBKCh.20344$6a.3708@bignews4.bellsouth.net... >> > >> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message >> > news:5411o6F1u4oblU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> >> >> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> >> news:8vkCh.12996$O8.6455@bignews2.bellsouth.net... >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > It seems to me that atheist who invade Religious Newsgroups >> >> > with their challenges, insults and attacks on Christians and the >> >> > Christian Religion are in reality expressing their great hope. >> >> > IE _the hope that there is no God. >> >> >> >> That's nice. >> >> >> > Given the two choices: >> > 1) A CREATOR exist and he created the universe >> > 2) There is no god, therefore, the Universe could not >> > have been created by a God. >> >> >> > I believe to the totally _unbiased_ the evidence, >> >> Which is what, exactly? >> >> I believe >> > comes down on the side of those people who believe in the >> > existence of God. >> >> Why? >> >> > It may or may _not_ have been the God >> > of the Bible. >> >> Okay, where's the evidence? >> >Do you really care? I have yet to find an atheist seriously >interested. From my experience, I have found that eventually >most will resort to personal attacks. The point is Atheist >come on Christian NGs with charges, challenges and >condemnations of the Christian faith. Since, I don't have >any desire to convert anyone, it doesn't matter whether or >not anyone agrees. My mother was a devout Christian. I will >defend her. But you, I don't care about. The question is why >do you care to enough about me to convince me that there is >no God? Because Dan, to an athiest, watching people continue to believe in something that we know to be completely untrue, is kind of like watching a crazy person that believes in some obvious delusion. You wouldn't let a man who thinks drinking lead paint will give him super powers continue to do such an obviously harmful thing to himself. Now, your little delusion of a magic man in the sky that knows everything and created the universe, is not nearly as immediately self destuctive as our paint drinking lunatic...it has its insidious and harmful issues as well. Quote
Guest jl Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 On Feb 21, 11:25 am, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message > > news:nijot21c4sn80e45unu1lhbc8nk88rksu3@4ax.com...> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:57:00 -0500, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> > > wrote: > > > >You are mincing words, even the Largest Mormon Church condemns > > >these off-shoot Mormon groups. That's only because mainstream Mormons were required to abandon polygamy as a condition of statehood. While mainstream mormondom was seated in Utah Territory, all mormons practiced polygamy. > > > "These off-shoot Mormon groups" are still Christians, and they don't > > condemn their own practices, so not all Christians condemn these > > practices. Whether you consider them Christian or not is irrelevant. > > IOW, there is no characteristics that places a group outside > or your notion of Christanity. Even where there is no belief > system or nothing nothing in common with the majority of > Christians. > > > > Certainly, those practicing polygamy > > >do not condemn the practice, nor did I say they did. > > > They're Christian, and you said ALL Christians condemned the practice, > > so you said that they condemned it. > > Where is your evidence that they are Christian? >> > Do you imply that > > >other Christians condone the practice of polygamy? > > > That wasn't your claim. > > They worship three different gods So do all the other Christians. They worship Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit, all three separate entities. The Holy Spirit's status is slightly higher than the other two since if you blaspheme him you're irrevocably damned, while you can receive clemency for blasphemy against Jesus or God. and have a different > Christ born in a different location. So YOU know where Christ was born? Nobody really knows if he ever existed. Their Christ was born > of another man who had progressed to godhood through > the institution and practice of polygamy. Their Mary was > one of their god's wives. Through polygamy and having > offspring throughout this life and the life to come they > can and many will become gods themselves. Most of the clergy here on earth already believe themselves to be gods. Every one I ever knew got off on his power and influence so much he decided he was divine. Witness the case of Ken "Dino" Hovind, who just went to Florida prison for 10 years for refusing to pay taxes. He thought he was God. > These gods will be gods over their own world and > work out their own plan of salvation for their believers. > This is how they justify the practice. > This is foreign to any legimate Christian group. Ah, smug and haughty you are there, fella. No Christian group is any more "legitimate" than any other Christian group, thanks to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Nor is any Christian group any more legitimate than a Wiccan group, or Buddhist group, or Santerian group (which sacrifices pigeons and goats). Protestant, > Catholic or Orthorodox. > You are right, they are not Christian. They are heathens. So you're at loggerheads. You're deadlocked and at a dead end. They think you are heathen. Fortunately for you, if all you cults and sects and denominations weren't arguing with us beloved atheists, you'd be burning each other at the stake. Quote
Guest Dan@V.A. Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 "jl" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1172079419.617178.106010@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 21, 11:25 am, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message > > > > news:nijot21c4sn80e45unu1lhbc8nk88rksu3@4ax.com...> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:57:00 -0500, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > >You are mincing words, even the Largest Mormon Church condemns > > > >these off-shoot Mormon groups. > > That's only because mainstream Mormons were required to abandon > polygamy as a condition of statehood. While mainstream mormondom was > seated in Utah Territory, all mormons practiced polygamy. > > > > > > "These off-shoot Mormon groups" are still Christians, and they don't > > > condemn their own practices, so not all Christians condemn these > > > practices. Whether you consider them Christian or not is irrelevant. > > > > IOW, there is no characteristics that places a group outside > > or your notion of Christanity. Even where there is no belief > > system or nothing nothing in common with the majority of > > Christians. > > > > > > Certainly, those practicing polygamy > > > >do not condemn the practice, nor did I say they did. > > > > > They're Christian, and you said ALL Christians condemned the practice, > > > so you said that they condemned it. > > > > Where is your evidence that they are Christian? >> > Do you imply that > > > >other Christians condone the practice of polygamy? > > > > > That wasn't your claim. > > > > They worship three different gods > > So do all the other Christians. They worship Jesus, God, and the > Holy Spirit, all three separate entities. > You don't know what you are talking about. An analogy is water. It can be liquid, gas or solid. But it still one. Same with the Christian concept of their God. > The Holy Spirit's status is > slightly higher than the other two since if you blaspheme him you're > irrevocably damned, while you can receive clemency for blasphemy > against Jesus or God. > > > > and have a different > > Christ born in a different location. > > So YOU know where Christ was born? Nobody really knows if he ever > existed. > The Mormon Christ was born in Jerusalem, the Christian God was born in Bethlehem. Two diffeent cities, according the two Bibles ie the Christian Bible and the Mormon Bible (the Book of Mormon) > > > Their Christ was born > > of another man who had progressed to godhood through > > the institution and practice of polygamy. Their Mary was > > one of their god's wives. Through polygamy and having > > offspring throughout this life and the life to come they > > can and many will become gods themselves. > > Most of the clergy here on earth already believe themselves to be > gods. > This is BS and I think you know it. > > Every one I ever knew got off on his power and influence so much he > decided he was divine. Witness the case of Ken "Dino" Hovind, who > just went to Florida prison for 10 years for refusing to pay taxes. > He thought he was God. > > > These gods will be gods over their own world and > > work out their own plan of salvation for their believers. > > This is how they justify the practice. > > This is foreign to any legimate Christian group. > > Ah, smug and haughty you are there, fella. No Christian group is any > more "legitimate" than any other Christian group, thanks to the > Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Nor is any Christian > group any more legitimate than a Wiccan group, or Buddhist group, or > Santerian group (which sacrifices pigeons and goats). > > > Protestant, > > Catholic or Orthorodox. > > You are right, they are not Christian. They are heathens. > > So you're at loggerheads. You're deadlocked and at a dead end. They > think you are heathen. > > Fortunately for you, if all you cults and sects and denominations > weren't arguing with us beloved atheists, you'd be burning each other > at the stake. > This is BS. How can you be so asinine? > > > Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:2E_Ch.21137$6a.20611@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message > news:5437fmF1uudilU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> news:bBKCh.20344$6a.3708@bignews4.bellsouth.net... >> > >> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message >> > news:5411o6F1u4oblU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> >> >> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> >> news:8vkCh.12996$O8.6455@bignews2.bellsouth.net... >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > It seems to me that atheist who invade Religious Newsgroups >> >> > with their challenges, insults and attacks on Christians and the >> >> > Christian Religion are in reality expressing their great hope. >> >> > IE _the hope that there is no God. >> >> >> >> That's nice. >> >> >> > Given the two choices: >> > 1) A CREATOR exist and he created the universe >> > 2) There is no god, therefore, the Universe could not >> > have been created by a God. >> >> >> > I believe to the totally _unbiased_ the evidence, >> >> Which is what, exactly? >> >> I believe >> > comes down on the side of those people who believe in the >> > existence of God. >> >> Why? >> >> > It may or may _not_ have been the God >> > of the Bible. >> >> Okay, where's the evidence? >> > Do you really care? I have yet to find an atheist seriously > interested. I guess this is your quaint way of saying that you don't really have any evidence and were just talking out your ass. Thank you for the clarification. Silly me for expecting you to be honest. My bad. From my experience, I have found that eventually > most will resort to personal attacks. The point is Atheist > come on Christian NGs with charges, challenges and > condemnations of the Christian faith. The point is it appears my questions were to difficult for you to answer. Otherwise you would have just done so instead of engaging in this ridiculous song & dance. Since, I don't have > any desire to convert anyone, it doesn't matter whether or > not anyone agrees. My mother was a devout Christian. I will > defend her. That's nice, but I don't see why you think I would give a shit. But you, I don't care about. The question is why > do you care to enough about me to convince me that there is > no God? Of course not. I don't give a flying fuck about what you believe in. I just wanted to see if you could back up your assertions with evidence. Obviously not. Oh well. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 On Feb 18, 10:11 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On 18 Feb 2007 08:20:47 -0800, in alt.atheism > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > <1171815647.683755.31...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>: > > > > >On Feb 18, 8:57?am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On 18 Feb 2007 07:53:50 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > >> <1171814030.140365.45...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >On Feb 17, 10:32?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > >> >> Bill M wrote: > >> >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > >> >> >news:1171521149.118439.271150@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > >> >> > On Feb 14, 9:21?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > On 14 Feb 2007 18:59:33 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> >> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > >> >> > > <1171508373.435033.309...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >> > > >On Feb 14, 5:24?pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> >> > > >> On Feb 14, 6:44 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> > On 14 Feb 2007 15:16:18 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> >> > > >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > >> >> > > >> > <1171494978.705022.208...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >> > > >> > ... > > >> >> > > >> > >Well, that is a myth that atheists like to tell. incoln said on > >> >> > > >> > >several occasions that he believed the Bible. > > >> >> > > >> > Source with complete context please. > > >> >> > > >> You'll never get it, not anything genuine. > > >> >> > > >> Our religious kook might give you a forgery, as David Barton did in > >> >> > > >> his book. > > >> >> > > forged quote of Lincoln is making its rounds in usenet at>> this very > >> >> > > moment. 4 recommends hunting down and hanging anyone > >> >> > > >> critical of the war effort. > > >> >> > > pundit has already confessed that he is > > >> >> > > >> the author of the quote. > > >> >> > > >> The fraud was perpetrated by one of the Moonie rags, either the Moonie > >> >> > > >> Times or that bag of internet lies called _Insight Magazine._ > > >> >> > > >Well, why don't you atheists just wait until after the resurrection > >> >> > > >and ask Abraham Lincoln in person if he believed the Bible? > >> >> > > >I see no reason to worry about it myself. > > >> >> > > Because you know that you have absolutely no evidence at all that there > >> >> > > is going to be a resurrection, yet you keep trying to duck questions > >> >> > > with your silly incantation.- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> > Jesus Christ was resurrected. (at is all the evidence we need. > >> >> > Robert B. Winn > > >> >> > You do not seem to understand the difference between a claim, a fable and > >> >> > objective verifiable evidence! > > >> >> He only accepts what his mummy told him, forgetting that her mummy told her > >> >> and then her mummy told her and 'ad infinitum' - well not exactly, as sooner > >> >> or later we reach back to a small group of primitives that made the myth up in > >> >> the first place. > > >> >> It's s hard to accept the fact that one's parents and grandparents were > >> >> telling unsubstantiated yarns - maybe for the best possible reasons, but > >> >> 'yarns' nevertheless- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> >So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys, > >> >you claim that he was telling a "yarn"? > > >> Since Jesus never said that, you are the one telling a tall tale. Still, > >> when it comes to science, it doesn't really matter what someone claims > >> Jesus said. The people who were writing these stories about Jesus had no > >> idea about common descent or evolution. I would be impressed with the > >> Bible if it had actually talked about it, but it doesn't.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > >Well, yes it does. Jesus Christ said that he was the son of God. > >That does not leave any room for monkeys in his geneology. My > >genealogy is the same way Jesus Christ's is. > >Robert B. Winn > > Matthew 5:1Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and > sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying: > 3"Blessed are the poor in spirit, > for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. > 4Blessed are those who mourn, > for they will be comforted. > 5Blessed are the meek, > for they will inherit the earth. > 6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, > for they will be filled. > 7Blessed are the merciful, > for they will be shown mercy. > 8Blessed are the pure in heart, > for they will see God. > 9Blessed are the peacemakers, > for they will be called sons of God. > 10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, > for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. > > Note verse 8. Thank you, Lunch. Wonderful to see you quoting scriptures. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 On Feb 21, 6:06 am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On 20 Feb 2007 20:04:21 -0800, in alt.atheism > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > > <1172030661.281379.130...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>: > > > >On Feb 20, 10:13?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >> On Feb 19, 10:10 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > >> > Well, I am probably less impressed by lawyers than Brigham Young was. > > > >> Judging by his many lawsuits and his comments about the lawyers > > >> afterwards, he hated them. ou can read the particulars in an article > > >> by Orma Linford, "The Mormons, the Law, and the Territory of Utah," > > >> and in many of Young's writings. > > > >> If it is any consolation to you I'm sure the Mormons had reason to > > >> distrust law and lawyers from their many bad experiences in Missouri > > >> and Illinois. > > > >> > Since you know so much about law, perhaps you could tell us your > > >> > interpretation of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the > > >> > United States. > > > >> A conscientious writer could spend a year writing about the 6th > > >> Amendment, it is so rich with caselaw and judicial gloss. > > >oreover, > > >> because of the 19th century's 14th Amendment, the 6th Amendment is now > > >> applied to the states and their subdivisions, including Utah and SLC. > > > >> Legal issues: > > >> pretrial rights > > >> venue > > >> in gremio legis > > >> speedy trial > > >> open proceedings, no closed courtrooms, no secret trials > > >> impartial jury of peers > > >> jurisdiction > > >> no ex post facto > > >> notice of charges in full particulars of facts and law so that accused > > >> may prepare his defense > > >> opportunity to be heard > > >> confrontation with witnesses, no trial in absentia > > >> subpoena power to compel attendance of witness and to bring documents > > >> and things > > >> (subpoena ad testificandum, subpoena duces tecum) > > >> right to attorney > > > >> What part of it piques your curiosity? r is it the whole damn thing? > > > >> AMENDMENT VI. > > >> Right to speedy trial, witnesses, etc. > > >> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a > > >> speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and > > >> district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district > > >> shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of > > >> the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the > > >> witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining > > >> witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his > > >> defence. > > > >> Now, Robbie, don't be sending me off another one of those wild goose > > >> chases. > > >> We're talking about whether there is a god, and btw the brains who > > >> drafted the 6th did not believe in a god, at least not in an > > >> intervenor who paid any attention to the affairs of humanity. > > > >The part that says in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a > > >right to trial by jury. Lawyers claim this means that in most > > >criminal prosecutions, the accused has no such right. > > >Robert B. Winn > > > Could you show me where the Supreme Court said that you don't have the > > right to a trial by jury in criminal prosecutions?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I don't know that the Supreme Court has addressed the issue lately. > In my state of North Carolina the right is preserved by de novo appeal > to a jury from an adverse decision by a judge. In which case if you > are convicted the judge will punish you by a sentence much harsher > than that of the court below. I note that in Tennessee if you appeal > from a guilty verdict by a judge, in a court where the officer can > testify to hearsay and summarize the testimony of all the other > witnesses while you object until you are red in the face, you are > required to pay a filing fee up front. That, imho, is > unconstitutional, a violation of the 6th Amendment. I have read that > in other states, like Nevada, the accused is subverted by various > devices from asserting his 6th Amendment right to jury trial. > > I do know that in many appellate court decisions nowadays, where the > courts have been packed with rightwing ideologs, doubleplusthink, > doublespeak, and Ingsoc have crept into the decisions. This all dates back to a minority opinion written by Thurgood Marshall that the sixth amendment did not really guarantee right to trial by jury. After that, state courts began denying right to trial by jury until we have reached the present condition where very few people are actually given an opportunity to have a trial by jury. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 06:11:45 GMT, in alt.atheism "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in <BoRCh.2394$PL.1098@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>: >"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:8s4nt2h6gpnmh27021i30ngvod1d0n6247@4ax.com... >> "Andrew" wrote: >>> >>>Religion may be defined as a personal set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices relating >>>to one's understanding of a deity. Atheists do not believe in Deity (God). They can >>>not -prove- this. It is their BELIEF. It is in fact therefore their religion as affirmed >>>by the courts. >> >> So what. You cannot prove that you are not really controlled by Satan. > > >So, Mr. Lunch denies God but openly acknowledges Satan - his true master. No, I merely made a simple logical point. I could have said Loki, Santa Claus or Rudolph. There is no evidence for God or Satan or any other gods of Christianity or any other religions. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 On Feb 21, 6:57 am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Feb 20, 11:04 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 20, 10:13?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 19, 10:10 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > Well, I am probably less impressed by lawyers than Brigham Young was. > > > > Judging by his many lawsuits and his comments about the lawyers > > > afterwards, he hated them. ?You can read the particulars in an article > > > by Orma Linford, "The Mormons, the Law, and the Territory of Utah," > > > and in many of Young's writings. > > > > If it is any consolation to you I'm sure the Mormons had reason to > > > distrust law and lawyers from their many bad experiences in Missouri > > > and Illinois. > > > > > Since you know so much about law, perhaps you could tell us your > > > > interpretation of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the > > > > United States. > > > > A conscientious writer could spend a year writing about the 6th > > > Amendment, it is so rich with caselaw and judicial gloss. ?Moreover, > > > because of the 19th century's 14th Amendment, the 6th Amendment is now > > > applied to the states and their subdivisions, including Utah and SLC. > > > > Legal issues: > > > pretrial rights > > > venue > > > in gremio legis > > > speedy trial > > > open proceedings, no closed courtrooms, no secret trials > > > impartial jury of peers > > > jurisdiction > > > no ex post facto > > > notice of charges in full particulars of facts and law so that accused > > > may prepare his defense > > > opportunity to be heard > > > confrontation with witnesses, no trial in absentia > > > subpoena power to compel attendance of witness and to bring documents > > > and things > > > (subpoena ad testificandum, subpoena duces tecum) > > > right to attorney > > > > What part of it piques your curiosity? ?Or is it the whole damn thing? > > > > AMENDMENT VI. > > > Right to speedy trial, witnesses, etc. > > > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a > > > speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and > > > district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district > > > shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of > > > the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the > > > witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining > > > witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his > > > defence. > > > > Now, Robbie, don't be sending me off another one of those wild goose > > > chases. > > > We're talking about whether there is a god, and btw the brains who > > > drafted the 6th did not believe in a god, at least not in an > > > intervenor who paid any attention to the affairs of humanity. > > > The part that says in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a > > right to trial by jury. Lawyers claim this means that in most > > criminal prosecutions, the accused has no such right. > > Of course, the law is what the judges say it is. Our government can > at pleasure change the definition of "criminal prosecution." See, for > example, where Justice O'Connor says the feds and states don't need a > jury for petty offenses: > Courts and judges are not the Supreme Law of the United States. The Constitution is. If people do not understand the English language, they would do better to not become lawyers and judges. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 On Feb 21, 9:25 am, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message > > news:nijot21c4sn80e45unu1lhbc8nk88rksu3@4ax.com...> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:57:00 -0500, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> > > wrote: > > > >You are mincing words, even the Largest Mormon Church condemns > > >these off-shoot Mormon groups. > > > "These off-shoot Mormon groups" are still Christians, and they don't > > condemn their own practices, so not all Christians condemn these > > practices. Whether you consider them Christian or not is irrelevant. > > IOW, there is no characteristics that places a group outside > or your notion of Christanity. Even where there is no belief > system or nothing nothing in common with the majority of > Christians. > > > > Certainly, those practicing polygamy > > >do not condemn the practice, nor did I say they did. > > > They're Christian, and you said ALL Christians condemned the practice, > > so you said that they condemned it. > > Where is your evidence that they are Christian? >> > Do you imply that > > >other Christians condone the practice of polygamy? > > > That wasn't your claim. > > They worship three different gods and have a different > Christ born in a different location. Their Christ was born > of another man who had progressed to godhood through > the institution and practice of polygamy. Their Mary was > one of their god's wives. Through polygamy and having > offspring throughout this life and the life to come they > can and many will become gods themselves. > These gods will be gods over their own world and > work out their own plan of salvation for their believers. > This is how they justify the practice. > This is foreign to any legimate Christian group. Protestant, > Catholic or Orthorodox. > You are right, they are not Christian. They are heathens. > > Dan Good thing we are free to choose for ourselves what we believe, Dan. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 On 21 Feb 2007 16:10:30 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1172103030.774994.92810@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>: >On Feb 21, 6:06 am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 20 Feb 2007 20:04:21 -0800, in alt.atheism >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> > <1172030661.281379.130...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>: >> >> > >On Feb 20, 10:13?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> > >> On Feb 19, 10:10 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > Well, I am probably less impressed by lawyers than Brigham Young was. >> >> > >> Judging by his many lawsuits and his comments about the lawyers >> > >> afterwards, he hated them. ou can read the particulars in an article >> > >> by Orma Linford, "The Mormons, the Law, and the Territory of Utah," >> > >> and in many of Young's writings. >> >> > >> If it is any consolation to you I'm sure the Mormons had reason to >> > >> distrust law and lawyers from their many bad experiences in Missouri >> > >> and Illinois. >> >> > >> > Since you know so much about law, perhaps you could tell us your >> > >> > interpretation of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the >> > >> > United States. >> >> > >> A conscientious writer could spend a year writing about the 6th >> > >> Amendment, it is so rich with caselaw and judicial gloss. >> > >oreover, >> > >> because of the 19th century's 14th Amendment, the 6th Amendment is now >> > >> applied to the states and their subdivisions, including Utah and SLC. >> >> > >> Legal issues: >> > >> pretrial rights >> > >> venue >> > >> in gremio legis >> > >> speedy trial >> > >> open proceedings, no closed courtrooms, no secret trials >> > >> impartial jury of peers >> > >> jurisdiction >> > >> no ex post facto >> > >> notice of charges in full particulars of facts and law so that accused >> > >> may prepare his defense >> > >> opportunity to be heard >> > >> confrontation with witnesses, no trial in absentia >> > >> subpoena power to compel attendance of witness and to bring documents >> > >> and things >> > >> (subpoena ad testificandum, subpoena duces tecum) >> > >> right to attorney >> >> > >> What part of it piques your curiosity? r is it the whole damn thing? >> >> > >> AMENDMENT VI. >> > >> Right to speedy trial, witnesses, etc. >> > >> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a >> > >> speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and >> > >> district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district >> > >> shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of >> > >> the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the >> > >> witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining >> > >> witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his >> > >> defence. >> >> > >> Now, Robbie, don't be sending me off another one of those wild goose >> > >> chases. >> > >> We're talking about whether there is a god, and btw the brains who >> > >> drafted the 6th did not believe in a god, at least not in an >> > >> intervenor who paid any attention to the affairs of humanity. >> >> > >The part that says in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a >> > >right to trial by jury. Lawyers claim this means that in most >> > >criminal prosecutions, the accused has no such right. >> > >Robert B. Winn >> >> > Could you show me where the Supreme Court said that you don't have the >> > right to a trial by jury in criminal prosecutions?- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> I don't know that the Supreme Court has addressed the issue lately. >> In my state of North Carolina the right is preserved by de novo appeal >> to a jury from an adverse decision by a judge. In which case if you >> are convicted the judge will punish you by a sentence much harsher >> than that of the court below. I note that in Tennessee if you appeal >> from a guilty verdict by a judge, in a court where the officer can >> testify to hearsay and summarize the testimony of all the other >> witnesses while you object until you are red in the face, you are >> required to pay a filing fee up front. That, imho, is >> unconstitutional, a violation of the 6th Amendment. I have read that >> in other states, like Nevada, the accused is subverted by various >> devices from asserting his 6th Amendment right to jury trial. >> >> I do know that in many appellate court decisions nowadays, where the >> courts have been packed with rightwing ideologs, doubleplusthink, >> doublespeak, and Ingsoc have crept into the decisions. > >This all dates back to a minority opinion written by Thurgood Marshall >that the sixth amendment did not really guarantee right to trial by >jury. >After that, state courts began denying right to trial by jury until we >have reached the present condition where very few people are actually >given an opportunity to have a trial by jury. >Robert B. Winn Excuse me if I don't accept your claim without any evidence. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 On 21 Feb 2007 16:14:55 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1172103294.978172.316170@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: >On Feb 21, 6:57 am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> On Feb 20, 11:04 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Feb 20, 10:13?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> > > On Feb 19, 10:10 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: >> >> > > > Well, I am probably less impressed by lawyers than Brigham Young was. >> >> > > Judging by his many lawsuits and his comments about the lawyers >> > > afterwards, he hated them. ?You can read the particulars in an article >> > > by Orma Linford, "The Mormons, the Law, and the Territory of Utah," >> > > and in many of Young's writings. >> >> > > If it is any consolation to you I'm sure the Mormons had reason to >> > > distrust law and lawyers from their many bad experiences in Missouri >> > > and Illinois. >> >> > > > Since you know so much about law, perhaps you could tell us your >> > > > interpretation of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the >> > > > United States. >> >> > > A conscientious writer could spend a year writing about the 6th >> > > Amendment, it is so rich with caselaw and judicial gloss. ?Moreover, >> > > because of the 19th century's 14th Amendment, the 6th Amendment is now >> > > applied to the states and their subdivisions, including Utah and SLC. >> >> > > Legal issues: >> > > pretrial rights >> > > venue >> > > in gremio legis >> > > speedy trial >> > > open proceedings, no closed courtrooms, no secret trials >> > > impartial jury of peers >> > > jurisdiction >> > > no ex post facto >> > > notice of charges in full particulars of facts and law so that accused >> > > may prepare his defense >> > > opportunity to be heard >> > > confrontation with witnesses, no trial in absentia >> > > subpoena power to compel attendance of witness and to bring documents >> > > and things >> > > (subpoena ad testificandum, subpoena duces tecum) >> > > right to attorney >> >> > > What part of it piques your curiosity? ?Or is it the whole damn thing? >> >> > > AMENDMENT VI. >> > > Right to speedy trial, witnesses, etc. >> > > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a >> > > speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and >> > > district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district >> > > shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of >> > > the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the >> > > witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining >> > > witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his >> > > defence. >> >> > > Now, Robbie, don't be sending me off another one of those wild goose >> > > chases. >> > > We're talking about whether there is a god, and btw the brains who >> > > drafted the 6th did not believe in a god, at least not in an >> > > intervenor who paid any attention to the affairs of humanity. >> >> > The part that says in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a >> > right to trial by jury. Lawyers claim this means that in most >> > criminal prosecutions, the accused has no such right. >> >> Of course, the law is what the judges say it is. Our government can >> at pleasure change the definition of "criminal prosecution." See, for >> example, where Justice O'Connor says the feds and states don't need a >> jury for petty offenses: >> >Courts and judges are not the Supreme Law of the United States. The >Constitution is. If people do not understand the English language, >they would do better to not become lawyers and judges. >Robert B. Winn So you assert. Quote
double helix Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 rbwinn wrote: > On Feb 11, 4:10�pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > Not even just one? > > > > Damn, you'd think with all that omnipotence and ego, at least one god > > would make itself known. > > Would you like me to send you a copy of the Bible? > Robert B. Winn Where WOULD yuo people be without your old book of fables and myths. Does it never filter through to your brains and past your eye blinkers [blinders] that is exactly what they are? Here's a few other man inspired and produced books: Baha'i Sacrid writings Life of Buddha - Dhammapada - Pali cannon The Book of Mormon - Church of Latter Day Saints The Analects - Confuscianism The Eddas and Sagas - Icelandic beliefs Wicca - Neo paganism of Greece and Rome over the centuries Bhagavgita and Rig Veda - Hinduism Qur'an - Islam Adi Granth and Dasam Granth - canonical scripture of the Sikhs The Tanakh - Jewism Tao-Te-Ching - Taoism Nag Hammadi - Gnostics Zhuan Falun - Falun Gong [Guess these must all be books of myths and fables Eh?] All written BY MEN ABOUT philosophies. All Subjective to these men's experiences and foundational beliefs. ALL FABLES AND MYTHS, STORIES AND LECTURES written by men to guide, comfort, explain the unknown and encouage people. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:25:22 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote: >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >news:nijot21c4sn80e45unu1lhbc8nk88rksu3@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:57:00 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> >> wrote: >> >> >You are mincing words, even the Largest Mormon Church condemns >> >these off-shoot Mormon groups. >> >> "These off-shoot Mormon groups" are still Christians, and they don't >> condemn their own practices, so not all Christians condemn these >> practices. Whether you consider them Christian or not is irrelevant. >> >IOW, there is no characteristics that places a group outside >or your notion of Christanity. Not a Christian group. > Even where there is no belief >system or nothing nothing in common with the majority of >Christians. They follow Jesus - that, and the fact that they claim to be Christian makes them Christian. You certainly aren't the one appointed to decide who's Christian and who isn't. >> > Certainly, those practicing polygamy >> >do not condemn the practice, nor did I say they did. >> They're Christian, and you said ALL Christians condemned the practice, >> so you said that they condemned it. >Where is your evidence that they are Christian? The Church of Latter Day Saints is a Christian Church. But Christians don't judge others, so where's your evidence that YOU'RE Christian? >> > Do you imply that >> >other Christians condone the practice of polygamy? >> That wasn't your claim. >They worship three different gods and have a different >Christ born in a different location. Their Christ was born >of another man who had progressed to godhood through >the institution and practice of polygamy. Their Mary was >one of their god's wives. Through polygamy and having >offspring throughout this life and the life to come they >can and many will become gods themselves. That's not only a wild distortion of LDS beliefs, it's bearing false witness, which a Christian wouldn't do. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:42:10 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote: >You don't know what you are talking about. An analogy is water. >It can be liquid, gas or solid. But it still one. Same with the Christian >concept of their God. The same water can't exist in all 3 states at the same time - the Christian god is supposed to. >The Mormon Christ was born in Jerusalem, the Christian God was >born in Bethlehem. Which didn't exist until LONG after Jesus died. It was a cemetery when he was supposedly born, and no Jews would live in, or next to, a cemetery. > Two diffeent cities, according the two Bibles >ie the Christian Bible and the Mormon Bible (the Book of Mormon) And the independent objective evidence that the Christian Bible is correct is??? >> Fortunately for you, if all you cults and sects and denominations >> weren't arguing with us beloved atheists, you'd be burning each other >> at the stake. >This is BS. How can you be so asinine? He can read history. Christians have been killing Christians for 2,000 years. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 On Feb 21, 3:45�am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On 21 Feb 2007 02:40:02 -0600, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> > wrote: > Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 On Feb 21, 10:36�am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Feb 21, 11:25 am, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message > > >news:nijot21c4sn80e45unu1lhbc8nk88rksu3@4ax.com...> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:57:00 -0500, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> > > > wrote: > > > > >You are mincing words, even the Largest Mormon Church condemns > > > >these off-shoot Mormon groups. > > That's only because mainstream Mormons were required to abandon > polygamy as a condition of statehood. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 On Feb 21, 5:40�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On 21 Feb 2007 16:10:30 -0800, in alt.atheism > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > <1172103030.774994.92...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > > >On Feb 21, 6:06 am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> > On 20 Feb 2007 20:04:21 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > >> > <1172030661.281379.130...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>: > > >> > >On Feb 20, 10:13?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> > >> On Feb 19, 10:10 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > >> > >> > Well, I am probably less impressed by lawyers than Brigham Young was. > > >> > >> Judging by his many lawsuits and his comments about the lawyers > >> > >> afterwards, he hated them. Quote
Guest Dan@V.A. Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1172103394.668478.105500@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 21, 9:25 am, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message > > > > news:nijot21c4sn80e45unu1lhbc8nk88rksu3@4ax.com...> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:57:00 -0500, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > >You are mincing words, even the Largest Mormon Church condemns > > > >these off-shoot Mormon groups. > > > > > "These off-shoot Mormon groups" are still Christians, and they don't > > > condemn their own practices, so not all Christians condemn these > > > practices. Whether you consider them Christian or not is irrelevant. > > > > IOW, there is no characteristics that places a group outside > > or your notion of Christanity. Even where there is no belief > > system or nothing nothing in common with the majority of > > Christians. > > > > > > Certainly, those practicing polygamy > > > >do not condemn the practice, nor did I say they did. > > > > > They're Christian, and you said ALL Christians condemned the practice, > > > so you said that they condemned it. > > > > Where is your evidence that they are Christian? >> > Do you imply that > > > >other Christians condone the practice of polygamy? > > > > > That wasn't your claim. > > > > They worship three different gods and have a different > > Christ born in a different location. Their Christ was born > > of another man who had progressed to godhood through > > the institution and practice of polygamy. Their Mary was > > one of their god's wives. Through polygamy and having > > offspring throughout this life and the life to come they > > can and many will become gods themselves. > > These gods will be gods over their own world and > > work out their own plan of salvation for their believers. > > This is how they justify the practice. > > This is foreign to any legimate Christian group. Protestant, > > Catholic or Orthorodox. > > You are right, they are not Christian. They are heathens. > > > > Dan > > > Good thing we are free to choose for ourselves what we believe, Dan. > Robert B. Winn > Yes, nevertheless, the practice of polygamy places these Mormon offshoots outside the Christian fold. Perhaps they are right, I'm not the one to say. Dr. Wood, DDS Quote
Guest bob young Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 rbwinn wrote: > On Feb 18, 10:11 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On 18 Feb 2007 08:20:47 -0800, in alt.atheism > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > > <1171815647.683755.31...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > > > > >On Feb 18, 8:57?am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> On 18 Feb 2007 07:53:50 -0800, in alt.atheism > > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > > >> <1171814030.140365.45...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>: > > > > >> >On Feb 17, 10:32?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > > >> >> Bill M wrote: > > >> >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >news:1171521149.118439.271150@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Feb 14, 9:21?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> >> > > On 14 Feb 2007 18:59:33 -0800, in alt.atheism > > >> >> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > > >> >> > > <1171508373.435033.309...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>: > > > > >> >> > > >On Feb 14, 5:24?pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> On Feb 14, 6:44 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >> > On 14 Feb 2007 15:16:18 -0800, in alt.atheism > > >> >> > > >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > > >> >> > > >> > <1171494978.705022.208...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>: > > > > >> >> > > >> > ... > > > > >> >> > > >> > >Well, that is a myth that atheists like to tell. incoln said on > > >> >> > > >> > >several occasions that he believed the Bible. > > > > >> >> > > >> > Source with complete context please. > > > > >> >> > > >> You'll never get it, not anything genuine. > > > > >> >> > > >> Our religious kook might give you a forgery, as David Barton did in > > >> >> > > >> his book. > > > > >> >> > > forged quote of Lincoln is making its rounds in usenet at>> this very > > >> >> > > moment. 4 recommends hunting down and hanging anyone > > >> >> > > >> critical of the war effort. > > > > >> >> > > pundit has already confessed that he is > > > > >> >> > > >> the author of the quote. > > > > >> >> > > >> The fraud was perpetrated by one of the Moonie rags, either the Moonie > > >> >> > > >> Times or that bag of internet lies called _Insight Magazine._ > > > > >> >> > > >Well, why don't you atheists just wait until after the resurrection > > >> >> > > >and ask Abraham Lincoln in person if he believed the Bible? > > >> >> > > >I see no reason to worry about it myself. > > > > >> >> > > Because you know that you have absolutely no evidence at all that there > > >> >> > > is going to be a resurrection, yet you keep trying to duck questions > > >> >> > > with your silly incantation.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> >> > Jesus Christ was resurrected. (at is all the evidence we need. > > >> >> > Robert B. Winn > > > > >> >> > You do not seem to understand the difference between a claim, a fable and > > >> >> > objective verifiable evidence! > > > > >> >> He only accepts what his mummy told him, forgetting that her mummy told her > > >> >> and then her mummy told her and 'ad infinitum' - well not exactly, as sooner > > >> >> or later we reach back to a small group of primitives that made the myth up in > > >> >> the first place. > > > > >> >> It's s hard to accept the fact that one's parents and grandparents were > > >> >> telling unsubstantiated yarns - maybe for the best possible reasons, but > > >> >> 'yarns' nevertheless- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > > >> >So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys, > > >> >you claim that he was telling a "yarn"? > > > > >> Since Jesus never said that, you are the one telling a tall tale. Still, > > >> when it comes to science, it doesn't really matter what someone claims > > >> Jesus said. The people who were writing these stories about Jesus had no > > >> idea about common descent or evolution. I would be impressed with the > > >> Bible if it had actually talked about it, but it doesn't.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > >Well, yes it does. Jesus Christ said that he was the son of God. > > >That does not leave any room for monkeys in his geneology. My > > >genealogy is the same way Jesus Christ's is. > > >Robert B. Winn > > > > Matthew 5:1Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and > > sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying: > > 3"Blessed are the poor in spirit, > > for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. > > 4Blessed are those who mourn, > > for they will be comforted. > > 5Blessed are the meek, > > for they will inherit the earth. > > 6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, > > for they will be filled. > > 7Blessed are the merciful, > > for they will be shown mercy. > > 8Blessed are the pure in heart, > > for they will see God. > > 9Blessed are the peacemakers, > > for they will be called sons of God. > > 10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, > > for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. > > > > Note verse 8. > > Thank you, Lunch. Wonderful to see you quoting scriptures. > Robert B. Winn What do you feel about the Koran Robbie? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 On 21 Feb 2007 19:46:34 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1172115994.713772.83880@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: >On Feb 21, 5:40?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On 21 Feb 2007 16:10:30 -0800, in alt.atheism >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> <1172103030.774994.92...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 21, 6:06 am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> > On 20 Feb 2007 20:04:21 -0800, in alt.atheism >> >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> >> > <1172030661.281379.130...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> > >On Feb 20, 10:13?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> > >> On Feb 19, 10:10 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > Well, I am probably less impressed by lawyers than Brigham Young was. >> >> >> > >> Judging by his many lawsuits and his comments about the lawyers >> >> > >> afterwards, he hated them. /u can read the particulars in an article >> >> > >> by Orma Linford, "The Mormons, the Law, and the Territory of Utah," >> >> > >> and in many of Young's writings. >> >> >> > >> If it is any consolation to you I'm sure the Mormons had reason to >> >> > >> distrust law and lawyers from their many bad experiences in Missouri >> >> > >> and Illinois. >> >> >> > >> > Since you know so much about law, perhaps you could tell us your >> >> > >> > interpretation of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the >> >> > >> > United States. >> >> >> > >> A conscientious writer could spend a year writing about the 6th >> >> > >> Amendment, it is so rich with caselaw and judicial gloss. >> >> > >oreover, >> >> > >> because of the 19th century's 14th Amendment, the 6th Amendment is now >> >> > >> applied to the states and their subdivisions, including Utah and SLC. >> >> >> > >> Legal issues: >> >> > >> pretrial rights >> >> > >> venue >> >> > >> in gremio legis >> >> > >> speedy trial >> >> > >> open proceedings, no closed courtrooms, no secret trials >> >> > >> impartial jury of peers >> >> > >> jurisdiction >> >> > >> no ex post facto >> >> > >> notice of charges in full particulars of facts and law so that accused >> >> > >> may prepare his defense >> >> > >> opportunity to be heard >> >> > >> confrontation with witnesses, no trial in absentia >> >> > >> subpoena power to compel attendance of witness and to bring documents >> >> > >> and things >> >> > >> (subpoena ad testificandum, subpoena duces tecum) >> >> > >> right to attorney >> >> >> > >> What part of it piques your curiosity? 2 is it the whole damn thing? >> >> >> > >> AMENDMENT VI. >> >> > >> Right to speedy trial, witnesses, etc. >> >> > >> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a >> >> > >> speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and >> >> > >> district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district >> >> > >> shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of >> >> > >> the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the >> >> > >> witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining >> >> > >> witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his >> >> > >> defence. >> >> >> > >> Now, Robbie, don't be sending me off another one of those wild goose >> >> > >> chases. >> >> > >> We're talking about whether there is a god, and btw the brains who >> >> > >> drafted the 6th did not believe in a god, at least not in an >> >> > >> intervenor who paid any attention to the affairs of humanity. >> >> >> > >The part that says in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a >> >> > >right to trial by jury. �awyers claim this means that in most >> >> > >criminal prosecutions, the accused has no such right. >> >> > >Robert B. Winn >> >> >> > Could you show me where the Supreme Court said that you don't have the >> >> > right to a trial by jury in criminal prosecutions?- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> >> I don't know that the Supreme Court has addressed the issue lately. >> >> In my state of North Carolina the right is preserved by de novo appeal >> >> to a jury from an adverse decision by a judge. n which case if you >> >> are convicted the judge will punish you by a sentence much harsher >> >> than that of the court below. note that in Tennessee if you appeal >> >> from a guilty verdict by a judge, in a court where the officer can >> >> testify to hearsay and summarize the testimony of all the other >> >> witnesses while you object until you are red in the face, you are >> >> required to pay a filing fee up front. �hat, imho, is >> >> unconstitutional, a violation of the 6th Amendment. have read that >> >> in other states, like Nevada, the accused is subverted by various >> >> devices from asserting his 6th Amendment right to jury trial. >> >> >> I do know that in many appellate court decisions nowadays, where the >> >> courts have been packed with rightwing ideologs, doubleplusthink, >> >> doublespeak, and Ingsoc have crept into the decisions. >> >> >This all dates back to a minority opinion written by Thurgood Marshall >> >that the sixth amendment did not really guarantee right to trial by >> >jury. >> >After that, state courts began denying right to trial by jury until we >> >have reached the present condition where very few people are actually >> >given an opportunity to have a trial by jury. >> >Robert B. Winn >> >> Excuse me if I don't accept your claim without any evidence.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Do whatever you want to do. A United States citizen cannot go into >court and ask for a trial by jury and get it the way the Constitution >guarantees. The reason for that is that lawyers have set themselves >up as an elite class who decide what rights the rest of us have. >There are some of us non-lawyers who say that lawyers cannot take away >our rights even if they deny them. >Robert B. Winn So you assert. I have no reason to accept your claim. None. I would guess that your lawyer told you that you would be an idiot to ask for a jury trial, but that's a separate question. Quote
Guest Dan@V.A. Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:dpspt2psl16pe3u967lm8clsfauv951lvf@4ax.com... > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:25:22 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message > >news:nijot21c4sn80e45unu1lhbc8nk88rksu3@4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:57:00 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >You are mincing words, even the Largest Mormon Church condemns > >> >these off-shoot Mormon groups. > >> > >> "These off-shoot Mormon groups" are still Christians, and they don't > >> condemn their own practices, so not all Christians condemn these > >> practices. Whether you consider them Christian or not is irrelevant. > >> > >IOW, there is no characteristics that places a group outside > >or your notion of Christanity. > > Not a Christian group. > > > Even where there is no belief > >system or nothing nothing in common with the majority of > >Christians. > > They follow Jesus - that, and the fact that they claim to be Christian > makes them Christian. You certainly aren't the one appointed to > decide who's Christian and who isn't. > You are right, all I can say is that pologamy places them outside the Triditional Christian fold. Perhaps they are right everyone else is wrong. I am not the one to say. > > >> > Certainly, those practicing polygamy > >> >do not condemn the practice, nor did I say they did. > > >> They're Christian, and you said ALL Christians condemned the practice, > >> so you said that they condemned it. > > >Where is your evidence that they are Christian? > > The Church of Latter Day Saints is a Christian Church. > This is _not_ about the LDS, but rather the polygamous offshoots. The Utah LDS Church condemns the practice of polygamy as well. But Christians don't judge others, so where's your evidence that YOU'RE Christian? > Check my post, where have I made any such claim? I am a member of th Masonic Lodge that is as close to a religious organization as I get. > > >> > Do you imply that > >> >other Christians condone the practice of polygamy? > > >> That wasn't your claim. > > >They worship three different gods and have a different > >Christ born in a different location. Their Christ was born > >of another man who had progressed to godhood through > >the institution and practice of polygamy. Their Mary was > >one of their god's wives. Through polygamy and having > >offspring throughout this life and the life to come they > >can and many will become gods themselves. > > That's not only a wild distortion of LDS beliefs, it's bearing false > witness, which a Christian wouldn't do. > Again this is about LDS offshoots. Dan Wood Quote
Guest Dan@V.A. Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:8mtpt2po57hlr9udcaoh7sdugsdsu3885r@4ax.com... > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:42:10 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > >You don't know what you are talking about. An analogy is water. > >It can be liquid, gas or solid. But it still one. Same with the Christian > >concept of their God. > > The same water can't exist in all 3 states at the same time - the > Christian god is supposed to. > A melting glacier is ice with water running off and water vapors escaping into the atmosphere. This I've seen. > > >The Mormon Christ was born in Jerusalem, the Christian God was > >born in Bethlehem. > > Which didn't exist until LONG after Jesus died. It was a cemetery > when he was supposedly born, and no Jews would live in, or next to, a > cemetery. > > > > Two diffeent cities, according the two Bibles > >ie the Christian Bible and the Mormon Bible (the Book of Mormon) > > And the independent objective evidence that the Christian Bible is > correct is??? > Whether it is or not, is another issue. But the two scripture differ on the birthplace of the two Christs. > > >> Fortunately for you, if all you cults and sects and denominations > >> weren't arguing with us beloved atheists, you'd be burning each other > >> at the stake. > > >This is BS. How can you be so asinine? > > He can read history. Christians have been killing Christians for > 2,000 years. > You live in the past, I live in the present. I look around, I do not see Methodist, Baptist Lutherans, Presbyterians or Catholics killing each other. Dr. Wood, DDS Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 On Feb 21, 9:38�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Feb 18, 10:11 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On 18 Feb 2007 08:20:47 -0800, in alt.atheism > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > > > <1171815647.683755.31...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>: > > > > >On Feb 18, 8:57?am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On 18 Feb 2007 07:53:50 -0800, in alt.atheism > > > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > > > >> <1171814030.140365.45...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>: > > > > >> >On Feb 17, 10:32?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > > > >> >> Bill M wrote: > > > >> >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> >news:1171521149.118439.271150@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> > On Feb 14, 9:21?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> >> > > On 14 Feb 2007 18:59:33 -0800, in alt.atheism > > > >> >> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > > > >> >> > > <1171508373.435033.309...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>: > > > > >> >> > > >On Feb 14, 5:24?pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > >> >> > > >> On Feb 14, 6:44 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > >> > On 14 Feb 2007 15:16:18 -0800, in alt.atheism > > > >> >> > > >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > > > >> >> > > >> > <1171494978.705022.208...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>: > > > > >> >> > > >> > ... > > > > >> >> > > >> > >Well, that is a myth that atheists like to tell. incoln said on > > > >> >> > > >> > >several occasions that he believed the Bible. > > > > >> >> > > >> > Source with complete context please. > > > > >> >> > > >> You'll never get it, not anything genuine. > > > > >> >> > > >> Our religious kook might give you a forgery, as David Barton did in > > > >> >> > > >> his book. > > > > >> >> > > forged quote of Lincoln is making its rounds in usenet at>> this very > > > >> >> > > moment. 4 recommends hunting down and hanging anyone > > > >> >> > > >> critical of the war effort. > > > > >> >> > > pundit has already confessed that he is > > > > >> >> > > >> the author of the quote. > > > > >> >> > > >> The fraud was perpetrated by one of the Moonie rags, either the Moonie > > > >> >> > > >> Times or that bag of internet lies called _Insight Magazine._ > > > > >> >> > > >Well, why don't you atheists just wait until after the resurrection > > > >> >> > > >and ask Abraham Lincoln in person if he believed the Bible? > > > >> >> > > >I see no reason to worry about it myself. > > > > >> >> > > Because you know that you have absolutely no evidence at all that there > > > >> >> > > is going to be a resurrection, yet you keep trying to duck questions > > > >> >> > > with your silly incantation.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> >> > Jesus Christ was resurrected. (at is all the evidence we need. > > > >> >> > Robert B. Winn > > > > >> >> > You do not seem to understand the difference between a claim, a fable and > > > >> >> > objective verifiable evidence! > > > > >> >> He only accepts what his mummy told him, forgetting that her mummy told her > > > >> >> and then her mummy told her and 'ad infinitum' - well not exactly, as sooner > > > >> >> or later we reach back to a small group of primitives that made the myth up in > > > >> >> the first place. > > > > >> >> It's s hard to accept the fact that one's parents and grandparents were > > > >> >> telling unsubstantiated yarns - maybe for the best possible reasons, but > > > >> >> 'yarns' nevertheless- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > > >> >So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys, > > > >> >you claim that he was telling a "yarn"? > > > > >> Since Jesus never said that, you are the one telling a tall tale. Still, > > > >> when it comes to science, it doesn't really matter what someone claims > > > >> Jesus said. The people who were writing these stories about Jesus had no > > > >> idea about common descent or evolution. I would be impressed with the > > > >> Bible if it had actually talked about it, but it doesn't.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > >Well, yes it does. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.