Guest Dan@V.A. Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:cfest2p1kpupctn0o33omhrcbaqon5p0a7@4ax.com... > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:49:45 -0500, in alt.atheism > "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in > <Bh9Dh.38628$19.29310@bignews3.bellsouth.net>: > > > >"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 > > > Not today, not publicly. Why, I'm sure it's been weeks since the good > Christians in the KKK have murdered anyone. Cite or do I just take the word of some who hates Christians? Dan Wood, DDS Quote
Guest Dan@V.A. Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1172203820.268635.234740@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 20, 9:18?pm, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > > > news:1172030782.372449.111750@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...> On Feb 20, 2:22?pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:51:17 -0500, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >Mormonism and Jehovah witnesses are extremes, far out in their beliefs > > > > >and practices. Several Mormon groups in Utah, Arizona Montana and > > > > >other states still practice polygamy. This is abuse of women and their > > > > >offspring. A practice condemned by all Christians. > > > > > > Not by two Christian sects - Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. > > > > > Atheists are the ones who are the greatest abusers of women. > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > We were informed by the two Mormon missionaries that if we reject > > this Joseph Smith we could not be saved into the presence of > > God. Only Mormons can enter into the presence of God. > > (who btw is just an exalted man who once lived on a planet > > and died was resurrected and progressed into godhood) > > I wouldn't really think so. > I know this is taught as justification for polygamy, where is is still practiced. This was exposed on nightline a few weeks ago. > Robert B. Winn > Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On 23 Feb 2007 18:25:55 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1172283955.302443.37900@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>: >On Feb 23, 11:40?am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> >wrote: >> After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 22 February 2007 11:14 >> pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 20, 11:22?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> >> > wrote: >> >> After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 >> >> 10:03 pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote: >> >> >> > On Feb 16, 6:36?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 15 Feb 2007 18:35:15 -0800, "rbwinn" >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >On Feb 15, 5:00?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> >> >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 14 Feb 2007 22:24:28 -0800, "rbwinn" >> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 14, 8:19?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> >> >> >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 14 Feb 2007 15:25:25 -0800, "rbwinn" >> >> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 13, 7:22?pm, "jls" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 13, 8:05 pm, Don Kresch >> >> >> >> >> >> <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:> In alt.atheism On >> >> >> >> >> >> 13 Feb 2007 16:59:35 -0800, "rbwinn" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ...] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Did you notice that nowhere in the Old Testament is the >> >> >> >> >> >> messiah predicted to be god? (e messiah is prophesied to >> >> >> >> >> >> bring peace, to bring comfort to the wretched, to heal >> >> >> >> >> >> the earth; but nowhere in the Old Testament does it say >> >> >> >> >> >> he will be worshiped as a god. >> >> >> >> >> >> >Isaiah 9:6 >> >> >> >> >> >> ?? See Is 8:3. That is the child spoken of in Is 9:6. >> >> >> >> >> >No, sorry. >> >> >> >> >> ?? ?? Sorry, but it's true. Only if one takes Is 9:6 completely >> >> >> >> out of context can it be applied to jesus. Will you admit to >> >> >> >> taking Is 9:6 completely out of context? >> >> >> >> >> Don >> >> >> >> >Well, let's work over to it, Don. ?? >> >> >> >> ?? ?? ?? ?? No, there's no working over to it. The fact is that >> >> >> the child born in Is 8:3 fills the prophecy from Is 7:14 and is >> >> >> being lauded from Is 8:5 on, continuing through Is 9. >> >> >> >> ?? ?? ?? ?? Interesting note: if you read Is 9:1-2 and then find >> >> >> Matt 4:12-16, you'll see how the former verses were concatenated >> >> >> to invent a prophecy that doesn't actually exist. >> >> >> > Well, as an apostle, Matthew certainly had the authority to say >> >> > what Isaiah meant by his prophecy. >> >> > So what is your authority to say that Matthew was concatenating >> >> > something? >> >> > Robert B. Winn >> >> >> One does not need an authority to see what can be easily demonstrated >> >> by reading the two passages oneself. ??Try it. ??The only way you >> >> could come to any other conclusion but that Matthew concatenated two >> >> verses is if you are subject to doublespeak. ??See Orwell's 1984 if >> >> you are unfamiliar with the term. >> >> >> -- >> >> Later, >> >> Darrell Stec ?? ?? ??dars...@neo.rr.com >> >> > Well, it does not really mean anything in this context. t is just a >> > word used by atheists trying to impress other people. �hatever >> > Matthew said about the book of Isaiah is authoritative because Matthew >> > was an apostle. >> >> Are you sure about that? �lease tell us the number of Joshua's apostles >> and their names without neglecting or leaving out any of the text on >> the subject of any gospel, Acts or epistles. y the way the author of >> Matthew quoted from a Greek version that we know did not exist in the >> first century CE. �ow did he do that? �ow old would he have had to >> have been to perform this minor miracle? �o you know when that book >> had Matthew's name put on it? t didn't appear on the early >> manuscripts you know. �one of the gospels had names on them. >> >> So much for your assumed authoritativeness. �ow tell us why we should >> deny that which we can plainly see for ourselves and that all biblical >> scholars in the last 50 years attest to? >> >> > Robert B. Winn >> >> -- >> Later, >> Darrell Stec $ars...@neo.rr.com >> >> Webpage Sorceryhttp://webpagesorcery.com >> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >It does not really matter what atheist college professors say about >the Bible. Everyone knows that atheists do not believe the Bible >anyway. So they are going to compass sea and land to find someone to >quote to discredit something in the Bible. Most of what they write is >fiction. I prefer reading the Bible to reading fiction. >Robert B. Winn I see that you are now changing your tune without actually admitting that you lied earlier. You know that "do not believe the Bible" does not mean "do not believe the Bible exists" yet you claimed that earlier. You also know that there is physical evidence that shows that some of the stories in the Bible cannot be considered historically or scientifically true, yet you claim that the Bible is not fiction. The problem for you is that it is your responsibility to show that the Bible is creditable. It is not the responsibility of critics to show that it is not. You have failed, and done it in a way that reflects badly, not only on yourself, but on those whose faith you share. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Dan@V.A. Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 "jl" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1172237302.394756.295100@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 21, 2:42 pm, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > [...] > > > > 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. > > I know my bible enough, having read it through several times, and > having been raised the son of a baptist minister and grandson of > missionaries, that there are three separate and distinct entity > deities in the kjv and the nuts who believe all that malarkey are > foolish enough to say it's ONE god, when there are THREE. You fundies > don't even know simple arithmetic. > > So much for your hokey analogy. You get to God thru Jeezus, Danny. > So saith the bible, a little like you get to Allah thru Mohammed. > Jeezus is not God; Jeezus is God's son, and the Holy Spirit is the > stud who came down and jumped in the sack with Mary. God didn't even > perform the stud service; he had his brother the Holy Spirit do it. > > At least the Greeks and Romans with their demi-god messiahs, the > Caesars, for example, claimed that a god and a mortal copulated to > make a demi-god, a messiah. The Christians, I believe, toned it down > a little, since in the case of the pagans there was a rape. So the > Christians used a ghost to make the act a little less unsavory, > although to be fair we should admit that Joseph was cuckolded and it > was a sort of immaculate adultery. But then they had to fix that by > having Mary and Joseph, who were apparently together at the time, > betrothed but not yet married. > > Three Gods are not one, Danny. And as a matter of fact the moozle-ums > have credible arithmetic on the question of monotheism. > God, you have a twisted mind. I bet you father and grandfather are proud of you. Dr. Dan Wood Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On 23 Feb 2007 18:09:54 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1172282994.677931.75010@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>: >On Feb 23, 11:05?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> On Feb 22, 12:18 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com>, i. e., Winnie thePooh, wrote: >> >> �...] >> >> > I have never appeared in court with a lawyer. always speak for >> > myself. always request trial by jury and then appeal the case on >> > the grounds that I was denied trial by jury. >> >> That must be the reason for your acrimony against the courts. �ou >> bumble and lose and then blame the lawyers and judges for your defeat. >> >> If you're as bad a lawyer as you are at furnishing caselaw for such >> zany charges as blaming Thurgood Marshall for taking away your 6th >> Amendment rights, I can understand why you're losing. >> >> Marshall voted with the majority in the 7 to 2 Suprme Court decision, >> _Duncan v. Louisiana,_ which required jury trials in all 50 states for >> criminal defendants accused of misdemeanors. �uncan applied the 6th >> Amendment to the states by incorporating it into the purview of the >> 14th Amendment. >> >> So your accusation against Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was denied >> admission to law school in Maryland because he was black, is grossly >> in error. > >All I know about it is that states started denying trial by jury. You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to support your claim, you just whine. >When it all started everyone was quoting a minority opinion written by >Thurgood Marshall. You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to support your claim, you just whine. >It has nothing to do with his race. He was a >Supreme Court Justice who saw a reason to deny trial by jury that all >lawyers bought into because they saw it would increase their status >and financial well-being. You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to support your claim, you just whine and defame lawyers and judges. >Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On 23 Feb 2007 17:58:11 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1172282291.376421.308410@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>: >On Feb 23, 6:44?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> On Feb 21, 10:46 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: >> >> > On Feb 21, 5:40?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> �...] >> > Do whatever you want to do. United States citizen cannot go into >> > court and ask for a trial by jury and get it the way the Constitution >> > guarantees. �he 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 >> >> Cite, cite, cite! > >State of Arizona v. Robert B. Winn 2004 That's not a citation. You need to show us not only the title of the case (which you purported to offer) but also the place it is printed. This would be the volume, reporter and series, and page. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On 23 Feb 2007 17:56:25 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1172282185.747568.131480@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>: >On Feb 23, 6:40?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> On Feb 21, 7:10 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: >> �regarding the 6th Amendment right to jury trial] >> >> > 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. >> >> I don't believe you. �hat's the citation for that Thurgood Marshall >> opinion? >> >> And what state or states do you refer to which deny the right to jury >> trial in a criminal prosecution? > >All states as far as I can tell. I don't know the exact case, all I >know is that it started with a minority opinion written by Thurgood >Marshall. Then there was a case in Nevada where a man was denied >trial by jury, then a case in Pennslyvania, etc., etc. I have >personally been denied trial by jury in Massachusetts, Idaho, Utah, >and Arizona. You why would states decide to abide by the losing side? That isn't how it's done. Please, learn a bit of law before you continue to defame judges and lawyers. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:14:33 -0500, in alt.atheism "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in <xYODh.16618$z6.15765@bigfe9>: > >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >news:cfest2p1kpupctn0o33omhrcbaqon5p0a7@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:49:45 -0500, in alt.atheism >> "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in >> <Bh9Dh.38628$19.29310@bignews3.bellsouth.net>: >> > >> >"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 >> > >> Not today, not publicly. Why, I'm sure it's been weeks since the good >> Christians in the KKK have murdered anyone. > >Cite or do I just take the word of some who hates Christians? Once again, a supposed Christian lies in this newsgroup. Why does that happen? You cannot show anywhere that I hate Christians as a group. Sure, I hate people who call themselves Christian and then act in ways that are completely contrary to Jesus's teachings. Sure, there are still racists out there who claim to be Christian but have joined hate groups. Even you can recognize that the history of Christianity includes murders supposedly done in the name of God. What changed the "good Christians" who decided to engage in a war with the United States rather than give up their right to enslave other people? What changed their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren who were murdering the descendents of the slaves and and getting away with it? When did Christians stop murdering other Christians and justifying their murders? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:06:48 -0500, in alt.atheism "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in <gRODh.16614$z6.629@bigfe9>: > >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >news:n17rt2hne74up3olepgl9dbhuin18u99u4@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:35:13 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> >> wrote: >> >> >Yes, nevertheless, the practice of polygamy places these Mormon >> >offshoots outside the Christian fold. >> >> Marriage itself does. Paul allows for it, but says that good >> Christians should be celibate. >> >I do not believe this! It this were true, Christianity would have >disappeared. > >Dan What have you read in the Bible? Quote
Guest bob young Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 rbwinn wrote: > On Feb 22, 9:21�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > > rbwinn wrote: > > > On Feb 18, 10:09�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > 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. Quote
Guest bob young Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 rbwinn wrote: > On Feb 22, 9:44�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > > rbwinn wrote: > > > On Feb 15, 9:08�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 6:46�am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote: > > > > > > On 15 Feb., 13:22, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:> On Feb 15, 2:17?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 15 Feb., 00:29, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:34?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > snip > > > > > > > > > > > Well, Bob, does the Bible exist or not? ?You say whether it exists. > > > > > > > > > Don't try to call me a liar just because I called your bluff. > > > > > > > > > > You are a liar. ?You said that I and others claimed the Bible did not > > > > > > > > exist. ?Not only was that a lie, it was incredibly silly. ?You called > > > > > > > > nobody's bluff; you just told a silly lie.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > You are still claiming that the Bible does not exist. Quote
Guest bob young Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 Darrell Stec wrote: > After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 22 February 2007 10:07 > pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 10:56?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >> > On Feb 17, 7:17?am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > On 17 Feb 2007 04:32:59 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > >> > > <1171715579.252212.188...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>: > >> > >> > > >On Feb 16, 10:09?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> > >> > > >wrote: > >> > > >> rbwinn wrote: > >> > > >> > On Feb 13, 5:57?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > ... > >> > > >> > > How many more times will you repeat that lie.- Hide quoted > >> > > >> > > text - > >> > >> > > >> > You atheists all play the same game. ?? ?? ??f you want to > >> > > >> > claim the Bible does not exist go ahead and say it does not > >> > > >> > exist. Robert B. Winn > >> > >> > > >> Well Christian 'Nut cases' sure do- Hide quoted text - > >> > >> > > >Well, here is a verse from Isaiah to cheer you up, Bob. > >> > > >Isaiah 1:25 ??And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely > >> > > >purge thy dross, and take away all thy tin. > >> > >> > > Clearly Isaiah was talking to you. > >> > >> > I still have tin, Lunch. > >> > Isaiah 2:2 ??And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the > >> > mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the > >> > mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations > >> > shall flow unto it. > >> > Robert B. Winn > >> > >> Yes that is where the primitives thought their god was, just above > >> the clouds atop of the nearest mountain. > >> > >> One reason, of course, why the Moses myth was written, [with no > >> witnesses] about his so called ??meeting with his god. ??Moses, like > >> all prophets, was a charlatan; IOW 'a liar' [assuming of course that > >> Moses actually existed.]- Hide quoted text - > >> > > Well, why don't you just wait until after the resurrection and tell > > Moses your complaints in person? > > I am sure Bob has great comfort in knowing that you believe he will be > in the same place as Moses and that Moses will devote a part of > eternity to carry on a conversation with him, just as I am comforted by > your believe I will end up in the same place as Matthew and that > Matthew will devote part of his eternity to carry on a conversation > with me. > > Sorry that I forgot to mention all the other readers here who can take > great comfort in knowing that Robert believes they are going to heaven > to talk with the saints. He has promised such to so many. Did you > not, Robert? Otherwise how would any of us get to talk to Moses, > Matthew, John and Joshua? Will heaven and hell have an intercom > between them, or will we be using our cell phones? no need - they will al be in the same padded cell > > > > Robert B. Winn > > -- > Later, > Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com > > Webpage Sorcery > http://webpagesorcery.com > We Put the Magic in Your Webpages Quote
Guest bob young Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 Free Lunch wrote: > On 23 Feb 2007 04:21:33 -0800, in alt.atheism > "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in > <1172233293.851121.149140@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>: > >On Feb 22, 9:52?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > >> "thomas p." wrote: > >> > On 15 Feb., 00:54, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > >> > > On Feb 13, 11:48?pm, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote: > >> > snip > >> > >> > > > > I offered to send you a copy of the Bible. ?You have consistently > >> > > > > maintained that the Bible does not exist. > >> > >> > > > Poor little Bobby thinks that repeating inane lies accomplishes > >> > > > something besides making him look like a fool.- Hide quoted text - > >> > >> > > > - Show quoted text - > >> > >> > > Well, let's get right to it. n what way do you acknowedge that the > >> > > Bible exists? > ob has a list that he keeps posting. �oes the Bible > >> > > exist the same way something on Bob's list exists? > >> > >> > And the twit continues to make a fool of himself. > >> > >> The fact that he exists confirms it- Hide quoted text - > >> > >Ask a question an atheist does not want to answer, and he will call > >you a fool. > > You are a fool. You are the one who foolishly claims that there are > atheists who deny that the Bible exists. You are a tremendous fool.... .....a fool of the worst kind, a dishonest fool, I have yet to see his equal here for dodging and weaving when faced with logical questions about his beliefs. I have opened his posts up to now to get a good laugh, but these days the funny side of his pathetic rhetoric is far surpassed by the boredom and drudgery of his repetitive side stepping cowardice. Well I have god news for Robert, no longer will he need to think of how to side step any more of my questions about his sky pixie and it's biblical hanger's on, as I will not be reading any more of his trash. [i wont plonk him though, it would be too high a compliment] Bob Humanist Brit. > > -- > > "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel > to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy > Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should > take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in > which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh > it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest bob young Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 Michael Gray wrote: > On 23 Feb 2007 04:54:02 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> > wrote: > - Refer: <45DEC75B.8B3E5B1D@netvigator.com> > > > > > >Michael Gray wrote: > > > >> On 22 Feb 2007 23:18:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> > >> wrote: > >> - Refer: <45DE7890.EB33D1FB@netvigator.com> > >> > > >> > > >> >Pastor Frank wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > >> >> news:bedkt25jc2k340fjstt9r0ftctvkun83ns@4ax.com... > >> >> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:36:48 +0800, in alt.atheism > >> >> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in > >> >> > <45d8c8cc$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Thanks for proving my point. So you disbelieve what I just said, as > >> >> >>usual, and are now claiming that atheism is a belief system, instead of a > >> >> >>disbelief system. Let's see you prove that. Either prove it, or admit > >> >> >>your > >> >> >>just lying for atheism again. > >> >> > > >> >> > You are the one who calls atheism a belief system. I call you on your > >> >> > lie. Atheism is not a form of belief. Lack of belief is not a system. > >> >> > You know that. You appear to like lying. Why is that? > >> >> > > >> >> Why is what? You proved no "lie". I agreed with you above, that atheism > >> >> is not a belief system. It's however a DISbelief system, for you are forever > >> >> listing all the things you don't believe and never get around to telling us > >> >> anything about what you DO believe. > >> > > >> >I believe that a fair proportion of religionists demonstrate constantly that > >> >they are liars and > >> >charlatans. That's what I believe > >> > >> I do NOT believe that. > >> Unless by "fair proprtion", you mean exactly 100% > > > >One must allow for the ordinary person longing for security thinking they can find > >it with an imaginary god, reinforced by following what their parents and > >grandparents believed. These are not charlatans, the charlatans are the > >propagators that lie and deceive. > > So, they do not lie when they claim that Jesus was born of a virgin? > Flew up into the sky after being tortured to death? > Came back down again and quietly chatted with a few people who never > existed, and then went back up into the sky, and will come back down > after 2,000 years? > That when a priest raves some mumbo jumbo over a biscuit and some > cheap vino, that it ACTUALLY turns into half-human flesh, and REAL > blood of ONE person? > Fot they quite simply MUST believe all this fraudulent crap to be > considered Christian. I aghree they do, but it hardly makes them inferior or bad to others, which was my point. It is the priets you mention who are the charlatans as they do it as a profession. Cheers > > > Their very best defence against lying is that they are quite insane. > I'm judging that of the semi-sane christians, none of them are stupid > enough to actually fully believe that crock-o-shit, at least not deep > down. > > -- Quote
Guest bob young Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 Michael Gray wrote: > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:03:45 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> > wrote: > - Refer: <iksut292bes3l6vbipk2211132p6hjvmm4@4ax.com> > >On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:48:24 +1030, in alt.atheism > >Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in > ><p85tt21v7s8ma863a82duja9b2vgas289s@4ax.com>: > >>On 22 Feb 2007 23:18:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> > >>wrote: > >> - Refer: <45DE7890.EB33D1FB@netvigator.com> > >>> > >>> > >>>Pastor Frank wrote: > >>> > >>>> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > >>>> news:bedkt25jc2k340fjstt9r0ftctvkun83ns@4ax.com... > >>>> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:36:48 +0800, in alt.atheism > >>>> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in > >>>> > <45d8c8cc$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Thanks for proving my point. So you disbelieve what I just said, as > >>>> >>usual, and are now claiming that atheism is a belief system, instead of a > >>>> >>disbelief system. Let's see you prove that. Either prove it, or admit > >>>> >>your > >>>> >>just lying for atheism again. > >>>> > > >>>> > You are the one who calls atheism a belief system. I call you on your > >>>> > lie. Atheism is not a form of belief. Lack of belief is not a system. > >>>> > You know that. You appear to like lying. Why is that? > >>>> > > >>>> Why is what? You proved no "lie". I agreed with you above, that atheism > >>>> is not a belief system. It's however a DISbelief system, for you are forever > >>>> listing all the things you don't believe and never get around to telling us > >>>> anything about what you DO believe. > >>> > >>>I believe that a fair proportion of religionists demonstrate constantly that > >>>they are liars and > >>>charlatans. That's what I believe > >> > >>I do NOT believe that. > >>Unless by "fair proprtion", you mean exactly 100% > > > >I think you are being far too hard on religionists. Some of them, Albert > >Schweitzer for example, were wonderful people who have done great things > >for the world (whether or not they were religious). > > I hear what you say, but even Albert Schweitzer had to lie outright > about reality and science to be a Christian. > Whatever great works he may have performed, that in no way takes away > from the fact that he had to lie to himself, and others, to remain a > Christian. > In his case, it is a far worse crime, as he didn't have the excuse of > ignorance. > > You seem to be saying that I should not call certain people liars, not > because they don't lie, but because they are otherwise good, or > because it is politically correct? > > Sorry. > That ain't my way. > A liar is a liar. What are your views on Hindus and Muslims then? > > > -- Quote
Guest Paul Ransom Erickson Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:07:20 +0800, "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote: >"Paul Ransom Erickson" <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote in message >news:n83ft2l51m41jk686v172i57t3i2invsbp@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:14:54 +0800, "Pastor Frank" >> <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote: >>>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message >>>> news:1171374673.776239.100670@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>> What is it that you think you are going to accomplish by making all of >>>> these lists of things you do not believe? >>>> Do you have any lists of things you believe? >>>> Robert B. Winn >>> >>> Atheists believe that by listing all they don't believe, what's left >>>over MUST be the truth. Unfortunately for them, there are an infinite >>>number >>>of things which are not true, and very few thing which are true. So they >>>will never reach that desired end. Not only that, but because atheists >>>look >>>only for what is untrue and lies, were they to come across the truth they >>>would miss it altogether. >> >> As usual, you think you know all about "athsists" based on your own >> past. I bet you haven't really changed much. >> > I changed from a self-justified sinner, to a repentant one. What about >YOU? How and why did YOU change "much"? Mostly it's been a slow process. >> As I and others have told you many times before, atheism really >> doesn't imply a whole lot about the rest of a person's beliefs. >> > As usual atheists always know and never tire listing what is not, does >not, cannot etc. etc. ad infinitum and ad nauseam. When will you tell us >what atheism DOES "imply" and how that makes you a better person? No. Because atheism has no business being a person's motivation. Other motivations will be behind our actions. But I've told you this before. >> But you don't really care about the truth of the matter, it seems. >> > Again, why list something that "don't"? List the thing that DO. I will do as i please. >> It's just so much easier to talk about "atheists" as a borg-like >> entity than to respond to individuals as individuals. >> > An atheist is an indiviual who specialises in listing negatives, >...exclusively. That's "borg-like" alright. I don't know why i sometimes feel the need to bother with you. >> Love is not bigoted, and does not force people into ill-considered >> stereotypes, Frank. >> > Are you quoting Christ here or Paul? I'm not quoting anybody, but I am alluding to scripture. >> Your god "love" is generous and eager to see the good... >> > No "my" love, but the love of Christ that dwells in me. > >> Why aren't you? >> > But I am, or rather Christ in me is!!! It's only that you don't look for >that. As an atheists you are forced to consider ONLY errors and faults. >Hence, every time you come across something "good" you cannot but miss it >altogether. What better proof could I ask for that you are not generous and that you have a squeezed and squished view of us. Show some good qualities and I will praise them. > It's the curse of the Borg which makes you fate-driven, whereas we >Christians are faith based and purpose-driven. Join us and see for >yourself!! All you need to do is in a spirit of repentance and supplication, >ask Jesus to take over you life and do His works through you. When the >Kingdom of Heaven dawns on you, you will know Christ has assumed power. For >wherever Jesus is, there His Kingdom of Heaven is also. indeed. Sigh. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On 24 Feb 2007 00:00:02 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote: - Refer: <45DFD3F4.7B1681CD@netvigator.com> > > >rbwinn wrote: > >> On Feb 22, 9:21?? Quote
Guest bob young Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 Darrell Stec wrote: > After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 9:59 pm > rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote: > > > On Feb 23, 12:49?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> > > wrote: > >> After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 7:38 > >> am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Feb 22, 10:22?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > >> >> rbwinn wrote: > >> >> > On Feb 16, 7:10?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > On 16 Feb 2007 17:53:22 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> >> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > >> >> > > <1171677202.265303.67...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>: > >> > >> >> > > >On Feb 16, 5:52?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote: > >> >> > > >> On 16 Feb., 13:17, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:> On > >> >> > > >> Feb 13, 6:31?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote: > >> > >> >> > > >> > > On 13 Feb., 14:03, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> > > >> > > > On Feb 12, 9:21?pm, bob young > >> >> > > >> > > > <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> > > >> snip > >> > >> >> > > >> > > What we do not have is any evidence of any miracle.- > >> >> > > >> > > Hide quoted text - > >> > >> >> > > >> > > - Show quoted text - > >> > >> >> > > >> > Well, if you had been one of the people in Jerusalem at > >> >> > > >> > thattime, you might have seen it a little differently. > >> >> > > >> > ??t did not seem like a miracle to Sennacherrib after he > >> >> > > >> > arrived home in Ninevah safe and sound, but when it > >> >> > > >> > happened, he was not so sure. Robert B. Winn- Skjul tekst > >> >> > > >> > i anf?stegn - > >> > >> >> > > >> Sorry boobie but your fantasies about what happened or what > >> >> > > >> people thought back then are not evidence. > >> > >> >> > > >Well, why don't we go right to what Isaiah wrote, Thomas? > >> >> > > >Isaiah 1:20 ??But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be > >> >> > > >devoured with the sword, for the mouth of the Lord hath > >> >> > > >spoken it. > >> > >> >> > > And you arrogantly think that you are the one to interpret it > >> >> > > and apply it here.- Hide quoted text - > >> > >> >> > I did not interpret anything. ??I just quoted the scripture the > >> >> > way it was written. > >> >> > Robert B. Winn > >> > >> >> you mean > >> >> 'how the last translator conceptualized the previous translator's > >> >> work, don't you?- Hide quoted text - > >> > >> > You do not know a lot about the Jews, do you? ??They prided > >> > themselves on not changing scripture. ?? > >> > >> There goes that arrogance again. ??Why do you pontificate upon that > >> which you know little to nothing? ??Do you know how may different > >> versions of the Hebrew bible there were? ??In each of those, some > >> verses were deleted, some verses were added and words were outright > >> changed and that doesn't even begin to address all the various > >> misspellings and scribal errors. ??Even the link I provided show that > >> in the book of Isaiah alone there were 40,000 differences between the > >> Hebrew Great Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic > >> Text. ??And ther were even more among the other Hebrew texts of > >> Isaiah found in the DDS. And we haven't even begun to examine the > >> Samaritan Hebrew bible. ??To complicate matters further scholars know > >> that there were at least three different versions of the Greek Old > >> Testament (only one of which survives today). > >> > >> But because you are ignorant of the Hebrew and Greek you cannot see > >> that for yourself and cannot follow the conversations of the Jewish > >> scholar who showed the differences letter by letter in the link which > >> I provided. > >> > >> > They were not always successful, but they > >> > had no overriding motive to change meanings the way atheists of > >> > today have. > >> > >> Of course they did. ??There was no one, single, unifying Jewish > >> movement throughout the whole of history. ??There were many Jewish > >> philosophies throughout history and Christianity developed from one > >> of them. ??Each had a motive for changing scripture. > >> > >> But even more to the point, you are not discussing the Hebrew bible > >> because by your own admission you are not equipted to do that. > >> ??Rather you are discussing an interpretation and translation of the > >> Hebrew and Greek scriptures. ??And to make matters worse, the > >> translation you use and worship was developed from very, very late > >> Hebrew and Greek manuscripts including two which were only completed > >> a decade before that translation was made and the Hebrew version > >> which was only 400 years old. > >> > >> You have no ammunition for this discussion. ??Even more to your > >> discredit, you do not even have a gun to fire it from. ??And upon > >> further consideration -- not even the arms to use the gun. ??You are > >> handicapped in any discussion of biblical scholarship, and that comes > >> from your own admissions. > >> > >> > Robert B. Winn > >> > > Well, what you say only proves me correct. If the book of Isaiah has > > gone through all you say it has and still has the pattern of language > > in English that proves it was all written by Isaiah, then what are you > > talking about? There is a pattern in the structure of what Isaiah > > wrote that identifies all of his writings. > > When college professors claim that at least four people wrote the > > book, or when atheists claim that there were schools of people > > manufacturing the book, they are only showing their ignorance. No one > > else writes the way Isaiah writes. > > Robert B. Winn > > How would you know? You can't read Hebrew. A translation from Hebrew > to English will not bring out the finer points of syntax, grammer > usage, anachronisms, nor word usage. I have just told the arrogant little bastard that his posts now go unread by me - It should be like a breath of fresh air from now on > > > -- > Later, > Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com > > Webpage Sorcery > http://webpagesorcery.com > We Put the Magic in Your Webpages Quote
Guest Paul Ransom Erickson Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:53:25 +0800, "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote: >"Paul Ransom Erickson" <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote in message >news:u4qft2ppbprus69bal5qdcjtjptkp7inf6@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:51:58 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> >> wrote: >>>On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:35:48 +0800, in alt.atheism >>>"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in >>><45d6f3c4$0$16389$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: >>>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >>>>news:021at2dduc81elh421vfel0tr3he94oqc0@4ax.com... >>>>> On 15 Feb 2007 04:31:43 -0800, in alt.atheism >>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in >>>>> <1171542703.680913.131700@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>Well, Thomas, here we see the last refuge of the atheist, the personal >>>>>>attack. We were discussing the Bible here in alt.bible. Now everyone >>>>>>can see your purpose in intruding in our conversation. If you do not >>>>>>want to talk about the Bible, why don't you go live the happy life of >>>>>>an atheist? >>>>> >>>>> I'm in alt.atheism watching you tell your lies. Why are you posting >>>>> your >>>>> lies in alt.atheism. >>>>> >>>> Because a.a. is ABOUT atheism, not a refuge FOR atheists. Also, >>>> atheist >>>>doctrine demands, that what we consider the truth, atheists MUST call >>>>lies >>>>or face excommunication and confiscation of their number. >>> >>>As people have pointed out again and again, yet you, in your hubris >>>refuse to acknowledge, there is no such thing as atheist doctrine. >>> >>>It appears that you hate people. >> >> Indeed. He spends a lot of time on alt.atheism telling us how awful >> he thinks we are. >> > Non sequitur to what I wrote. My comments concerned atheism as a >philosophy of life, not atheists as persons. But then atheism requires >atheists to ALWAYS emphasis faults, errors, shortcomings, insufficiencies >etc. to the exclusion of affirming what is good, right, desirable, and >salutary. > That is what hell is all about, all negative and despairing and nothing >positive and hopeful. And that is also why Christ came to bring us the Good >News. No, no. I'm done with you. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On 24 Feb 2007 00:18:03 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote: - Refer: <45DFD81F.528F576C@netvigator.com> > > >Michael Gray wrote: > >> On 23 Feb 2007 04:54:02 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> >> wrote: >> - Refer: <45DEC75B.8B3E5B1D@netvigator.com> >> > >> > >> >Michael Gray wrote: >> > >> >> On 22 Feb 2007 23:18:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> - Refer: <45DE7890.EB33D1FB@netvigator.com> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Pastor Frank wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >> >> >> news:bedkt25jc2k340fjstt9r0ftctvkun83ns@4ax.com... >> >> >> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:36:48 +0800, in alt.atheism >> >> >> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in >> >> >> > <45d8c8cc$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for proving my point. So you disbelieve what I just said, as >> >> >> >>usual, and are now claiming that atheism is a belief system, instead of a >> >> >> >>disbelief system. Let's see you prove that. Either prove it, or admit >> >> >> >>your >> >> >> >>just lying for atheism again. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > You are the one who calls atheism a belief system. I call you on your >> >> >> > lie. Atheism is not a form of belief. Lack of belief is not a system. >> >> >> > You know that. You appear to like lying. Why is that? >> >> >> > >> >> >> Why is what? You proved no "lie". I agreed with you above, that atheism >> >> >> is not a belief system. It's however a DISbelief system, for you are forever >> >> >> listing all the things you don't believe and never get around to telling us >> >> >> anything about what you DO believe. >> >> > >> >> >I believe that a fair proportion of religionists demonstrate constantly that >> >> >they are liars and >> >> >charlatans. That's what I believe >> >> >> >> I do NOT believe that. >> >> Unless by "fair proprtion", you mean exactly 100% >> > >> >One must allow for the ordinary person longing for security thinking they can find >> >it with an imaginary god, reinforced by following what their parents and >> >grandparents believed. These are not charlatans, the charlatans are the >> >propagators that lie and deceive. >> >> So, they do not lie when they claim that Jesus was born of a virgin? >> Flew up into the sky after being tortured to death? >> Came back down again and quietly chatted with a few people who never >> existed, and then went back up into the sky, and will come back down >> after 2,000 years? >> That when a priest raves some mumbo jumbo over a biscuit and some >> cheap vino, that it ACTUALLY turns into half-human flesh, and REAL >> blood of ONE person? >> Fot they quite simply MUST believe all this fraudulent crap to be >> considered Christian. > >I aghree they do, but it hardly makes them inferior or bad to others, which was my >point. My reading is that you clearly consider those people who deliberately lie insanely, but are otherwise good, to be "hardly" inferior to those who do good, but retain probity? That is where we differ, in spades! >It is the priets you mention who are the charlatans as they do it as a >profession. Quite. They are the ringleaders, like Fagin. But that in no way relieves the "Oliver Twist" from the culpability of his criminal offences, especially when most of them have an easy choice: Stay Christian and keep wilfully fabricating frauds, or drop the Christianity, and become honest. It doesn't take any change other than in one's mind, and at no expense. No, we seem to have very different opinions on this issue. They are wilfull, deliberate and conscious liars. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:34:28 -0500, Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote: - Refer: <549pvqF1vgjuhU1@mid.individual.net> >After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 9:59 pm >rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote: > >> On Feb 23, 12:49?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> >> wrote: >>> After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 7:38 >>> am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Feb 22, 10:22?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: >>> >> rbwinn wrote: >>> >> > On Feb 16, 7:10?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >> > > On 16 Feb 2007 17:53:22 -0800, in alt.atheism >>> >> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >>> >> > > <1171677202.265303.67...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>: >>> >>> >> > > >On Feb 16, 5:52?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote: >>> >> > > >> On 16 Feb., 13:17, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:> On >>> >> > > >> Feb 13, 6:31?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote: >>> >>> >> > > >> > > On 13 Feb., 14:03, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: >>> >>> >> > > >> > > > On Feb 12, 9:21?pm, bob young >>> >> > > >> > > > <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: >>> >>> >> > > >> snip >>> >>> >> > > >> > > What we do not have is any evidence of any miracle.- >>> >> > > >> > > Hide quoted text - >>> >>> >> > > >> > > - Show quoted text - >>> >>> >> > > >> > Well, if you had been one of the people in Jerusalem at >>> >> > > >> > thattime, you might have seen it a little differently. >>> >> > > >> > ??t did not seem like a miracle to Sennacherrib after he >>> >> > > >> > arrived home in Ninevah safe and sound, but when it >>> >> > > >> > happened, he was not so sure. Robert B. Winn- Skjul tekst >>> >> > > >> > i anf?stegn - >>> >>> >> > > >> Sorry boobie but your fantasies about what happened or what >>> >> > > >> people thought back then are not evidence. >>> >>> >> > > >Well, why don't we go right to what Isaiah wrote, Thomas? >>> >> > > >Isaiah 1:20 ??But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be >>> >> > > >devoured with the sword, for the mouth of the Lord hath >>> >> > > >spoken it. >>> >>> >> > > And you arrogantly think that you are the one to interpret it >>> >> > > and apply it here.- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> >> > I did not interpret anything. ??I just quoted the scripture the >>> >> > way it was written. >>> >> > Robert B. Winn >>> >>> >> you mean >>> >> 'how the last translator conceptualized the previous translator's >>> >> work, don't you?- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> > You do not know a lot about the Jews, do you? ??They prided >>> > themselves on not changing scripture. ?? >>> >>> There goes that arrogance again. ??Why do you pontificate upon that >>> which you know little to nothing? ??Do you know how may different >>> versions of the Hebrew bible there were? ??In each of those, some >>> verses were deleted, some verses were added and words were outright >>> changed and that doesn't even begin to address all the various >>> misspellings and scribal errors. ??Even the link I provided show that >>> in the book of Isaiah alone there were 40,000 differences between the >>> Hebrew Great Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic >>> Text. ??And ther were even more among the other Hebrew texts of >>> Isaiah found in the DDS. And we haven't even begun to examine the >>> Samaritan Hebrew bible. ??To complicate matters further scholars know >>> that there were at least three different versions of the Greek Old >>> Testament (only one of which survives today). >>> >>> But because you are ignorant of the Hebrew and Greek you cannot see >>> that for yourself and cannot follow the conversations of the Jewish >>> scholar who showed the differences letter by letter in the link which >>> I provided. >>> >>> > They were not always successful, but they >>> > had no overriding motive to change meanings the way atheists of >>> > today have. >>> >>> Of course they did. ??There was no one, single, unifying Jewish >>> movement throughout the whole of history. ??There were many Jewish >>> philosophies throughout history and Christianity developed from one >>> of them. ??Each had a motive for changing scripture. >>> >>> But even more to the point, you are not discussing the Hebrew bible >>> because by your own admission you are not equipted to do that. >>> ??Rather you are discussing an interpretation and translation of the >>> Hebrew and Greek scriptures. ??And to make matters worse, the >>> translation you use and worship was developed from very, very late >>> Hebrew and Greek manuscripts including two which were only completed >>> a decade before that translation was made and the Hebrew version >>> which was only 400 years old. >>> >>> You have no ammunition for this discussion. ??Even more to your >>> discredit, you do not even have a gun to fire it from. ??And upon >>> further consideration -- not even the arms to use the gun. ??You are >>> handicapped in any discussion of biblical scholarship, and that comes >>> from your own admissions. >>> >>> > Robert B. Winn >>> >> Well, what you say only proves me correct. If the book of Isaiah has >> gone through all you say it has and still has the pattern of language >> in English that proves it was all written by Isaiah, then what are you >> talking about? There is a pattern in the structure of what Isaiah >> wrote that identifies all of his writings. >> When college professors claim that at least four people wrote the >> book, or when atheists claim that there were schools of people >> manufacturing the book, they are only showing their ignorance. No one >> else writes the way Isaiah writes. >> Robert B. Winn > >How would you know? You can't read Hebrew. A translation from Hebrew >to English will not bring out the finer points of syntax, grammer >usage, anachronisms, nor word usage. And from what I can gather, he is reading from the most egregious translation available to the English reader. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On 24 Feb 2007 00:20:02 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote: - Refer: <45DFD8B4.3F6AE75A@netvigator.com> > > >Michael Gray wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:03:45 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> >> wrote: >> - Refer: <iksut292bes3l6vbipk2211132p6hjvmm4@4ax.com> >> >On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:48:24 +1030, in alt.atheism >> >Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in >> ><p85tt21v7s8ma863a82duja9b2vgas289s@4ax.com>: >> >>On 22 Feb 2007 23:18:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> >> >>wrote: >> >> - Refer: <45DE7890.EB33D1FB@netvigator.com> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>Pastor Frank wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >> >>>> news:bedkt25jc2k340fjstt9r0ftctvkun83ns@4ax.com... >> >>>> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:36:48 +0800, in alt.atheism >> >>>> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in >> >>>> > <45d8c8cc$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Thanks for proving my point. So you disbelieve what I just said, as >> >>>> >>usual, and are now claiming that atheism is a belief system, instead of a >> >>>> >>disbelief system. Let's see you prove that. Either prove it, or admit >> >>>> >>your >> >>>> >>just lying for atheism again. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > You are the one who calls atheism a belief system. I call you on your >> >>>> > lie. Atheism is not a form of belief. Lack of belief is not a system. >> >>>> > You know that. You appear to like lying. Why is that? >> >>>> > >> >>>> Why is what? You proved no "lie". I agreed with you above, that atheism >> >>>> is not a belief system. It's however a DISbelief system, for you are forever >> >>>> listing all the things you don't believe and never get around to telling us >> >>>> anything about what you DO believe. >> >>> >> >>>I believe that a fair proportion of religionists demonstrate constantly that >> >>>they are liars and >> >>>charlatans. That's what I believe >> >> >> >>I do NOT believe that. >> >>Unless by "fair proprtion", you mean exactly 100% >> > >> >I think you are being far too hard on religionists. Some of them, Albert >> >Schweitzer for example, were wonderful people who have done great things >> >for the world (whether or not they were religious). >> >> I hear what you say, but even Albert Schweitzer had to lie outright >> about reality and science to be a Christian. >> Whatever great works he may have performed, that in no way takes away >> from the fact that he had to lie to himself, and others, to remain a >> Christian. >> In his case, it is a far worse crime, as he didn't have the excuse of >> ignorance. >> >> You seem to be saying that I should not call certain people liars, not >> because they don't lie, but because they are otherwise good, or >> because it is politically correct? >> >> Sorry. >> That ain't my way. >> A liar is a liar. > >What are your views on Hindus and Muslims then? A quick guide. Hindus: slightly more honest than the monotheistic Abrahamic con artists. Muslims: Exactly like Christians, (by definition): either liars or demented, or both. -- Quote
Guest bob young Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 Michael Gray wrote: > On 24 Feb 2007 00:18:03 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> > wrote: > - Refer: <45DFD81F.528F576C@netvigator.com> > > > > > >Michael Gray wrote: > > > >> On 23 Feb 2007 04:54:02 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> > >> wrote: > >> - Refer: <45DEC75B.8B3E5B1D@netvigator.com> > >> > > >> > > >> >Michael Gray wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 22 Feb 2007 23:18:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> - Refer: <45DE7890.EB33D1FB@netvigator.com> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >Pastor Frank wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:bedkt25jc2k340fjstt9r0ftctvkun83ns@4ax.com... > >> >> >> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:36:48 +0800, in alt.atheism > >> >> >> > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in > >> >> >> > <45d8c8cc$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Thanks for proving my point. So you disbelieve what I just said, as > >> >> >> >>usual, and are now claiming that atheism is a belief system, instead of a > >> >> >> >>disbelief system. Let's see you prove that. Either prove it, or admit > >> >> >> >>your > >> >> >> >>just lying for atheism again. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > You are the one who calls atheism a belief system. I call you on your > >> >> >> > lie. Atheism is not a form of belief. Lack of belief is not a system. > >> >> >> > You know that. You appear to like lying. Why is that? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Why is what? You proved no "lie". I agreed with you above, that atheism > >> >> >> is not a belief system. It's however a DISbelief system, for you are forever > >> >> >> listing all the things you don't believe and never get around to telling us > >> >> >> anything about what you DO believe. > >> >> > > >> >> >I believe that a fair proportion of religionists demonstrate constantly that > >> >> >they are liars and > >> >> >charlatans. That's what I believe > >> >> > >> >> I do NOT believe that. > >> >> Unless by "fair proprtion", you mean exactly 100% > >> > > >> >One must allow for the ordinary person longing for security thinking they can find > >> >it with an imaginary god, reinforced by following what their parents and > >> >grandparents believed. These are not charlatans, the charlatans are the > >> >propagators that lie and deceive. > >> > >> So, they do not lie when they claim that Jesus was born of a virgin? > >> Flew up into the sky after being tortured to death? > >> Came back down again and quietly chatted with a few people who never > >> existed, and then went back up into the sky, and will come back down > >> after 2,000 years? > >> That when a priest raves some mumbo jumbo over a biscuit and some > >> cheap vino, that it ACTUALLY turns into half-human flesh, and REAL > >> blood of ONE person? > >> Fot they quite simply MUST believe all this fraudulent crap to be > >> considered Christian. > > > >I aghree they do, but it hardly makes them inferior or bad to others, which was my > >point. > > My reading is that you clearly consider those people who > deliberately lie insanely, but are otherwise good, to be "hardly" > inferior to those who do good, but retain probity? > > That is where we differ, in spades! > > >It is the priets you mention who are the charlatans as they do it as a > >profession. > > Quite. > They are the ringleaders, like Fagin. > But that in no way relieves the "Oliver Twist" from the culpability of > his criminal offences, especially when most of them have an easy > choice: > Stay Christian and keep wilfully fabricating frauds, or drop the > Christianity, and become honest. > It doesn't take any change other than in one's mind, and at no > expense. > > No, we seem to have very different opinions on this issue. > They are wilfull, deliberate and conscious liars. Someone brought up in the church and brainwashed as a child, on reaching his teens is hardly lying about his belief, he is simply misguided, misdirected and misinformed; but he can still be a very nice person. One of my favorite aunties was a 'died in the wool' Christian and nothing would budge her but she was a wonderful person. She lost her husband when he was fifty and went into wearing black for the rest of her life 'until she could join Daddy'. This is what I dislike about religion [not just Christianity] in a modern world [this took place forty years ago] she could have remarried instead of waiting fruitlessly for nearly fifty years before she herself finally passed away. What are your views on Islam and Hinduism? > > > -- Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:00:05 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that: >On Feb 23, 7:07?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:19:49 -0800, "rbwinn" >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >Well, actually, it does. Paul stated that in the last days men would >> >be turned to fables, being unable to abide sound doctrine. >> >> jesus = fable. >> > The person to explain your idea to would be Jesus Christ. jesus = fable. IOW: you can repeat that "you can talk to jesus when he comes back", but that pathetic attempt at a threat means nothing. You'll have to find something valid. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:04:58 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that: >On Feb 23, 7:10?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:31:53 -0800, "rbwinn" >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 18, 10:09?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: >> >> rbwinn wrote: >> >> > 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... >> >> > So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys, >> >> > you claim that he was telling a "yarn"? >> >> > Robert B. Winn >> >> >> IDIOT there is nothing to show your Jesus said anything other than what other >> >> foolish humans like you have claimed >> >> >> Grow up- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> >Well, here we have another statement from an atheist denying the >> >existence of the Bible. >> >> No, that's not what we have. We only have that if you, Bobby, >> do not understand English. Are you admitting that you do not >> understand English? >You first, Don. Oh please, Bobby. IKYABWAI is so kindergarten. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" 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.