Guest Don Kresch Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:02:16 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that: >On Feb 23, 7:09?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:53:52 -0800, "rbwinn" >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 19, 8:18?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: >> >> rbwinn wrote: >> >> > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: >> >> > > rbwinn wrote: >> >> > > > On Feb 14, 4:44?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. )ncoln said on >> >> > > > > >several occasions that he believed the Bible. >> >> >> > > > > Source with complete context please. >> >> >> > > > I can give you the original source. !lk to Abraham Lincoln after the >> >> > > > resurrection. % can tell you in person. >> >> > > > Robert B. Winn >> >> >> > > I am seriously thinking of <plonking> you for the third time - what a >> >> > > wally- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> > > - Show quoted text - >> >> >> > Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. / need to get irrational. >> >> > Isaiah 2:17 >> >> nd the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the >> >> >> > haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall be >> >> > exalted in that day. >> >> > �obert B. Winn >> >> >> Nothing could be MORE irrational than quoting ad infinitum, >> >> verses from an old book written by one primitive out of a gaggle of >> >> primitives >> >> >> Grow up- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> >How about this? Here is someone who thinks that his ancestors were >> >monkeys telling me to grow up. >> >> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! >> >> Every time a creationist says something like "you believe your >> ancestors were monkeys", the creationist is exposed as the dumbest >> fucking person on the planet. >Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. Crying about "profanity" is the last resort of one who has no argument to begin with, and merely demonstrates the lack of intelligence on the part of the complainer. 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 rbwinn Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Feb 23, 9:09�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On 23 Feb 2007 18:27:40 -0800, in alt.atheism > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > <1172284059.970326.74...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>: > > > > >On Feb 23, 11:46?am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> > >wrote: > >> After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 22 February 2007 9:59 > >> pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote: > > >> > On Feb 17, 10:49?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > >> >> rbwinn wrote: > >> >> > On Feb 16, 10:10?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > >> >> > > Free Lunch wrote: > >> >> > > > On 16 Feb 2007 16:54:10 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> >> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > >> >> > > > <1171673650.738689.54...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: > >> >> > > > >On Feb 13, 5:57?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > > >> On 13 Feb 2007 16:54:11 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> >> > > > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > >> >> > > > >> <1171414451.120125.63...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >> > > > ... > > >> >> > > > >> >I offered to send you a copy of the Bible. ??ou have > >> >> > > > >> >consistently maintained that the Bible does not exist. > > >> >> > > > >> How many more times will you repeat that lie.- Hide quoted > >> >> > > > >> text - > > >> >> > > > >You atheists all play the same game. ??If you want to claim > >> >> > > > >the Bible does not exist go ahead and say it does not exist. > >> >> > > > >Robert B. Winn > > >> >> > > > Once again you lie. > > >> >> > > > You know that none of us have ever claimed that the Bible does > >> >> > > > not exist. You insist on this false witness because you cannot > >> >> > > > be honest and admit that the Bible is not in itself evidence of > >> >> > > > anything. It is just one of many religious texts that is held > >> >> > > > in high regard by one religion or another. There is no evidence > >> >> > > > that the Bible is any more true than the Q'ran or any other > >> >> > > > religious text. > > >> >> > > > We all know the Bible exists. What we won't buy is your false > >> >> > > > claim that there is something special about it. > > >> >> > > > Stop your lies. > > >> >> > > It's a 'backs to the wall' reaction - pure and simple- Hide > >> >> > > quoted text - > > >> >> > > - Show quoted text - > > >> >> > I want to be watching when you try to run your game on Jesus > >> >> > Christ. Robert B. Winn > > >> >> Lunacy laced with arrogance and vindictiveness. > > >> >> ...........and YOU wonder why there are atheists- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> > No, I don't wonder why there are atheists. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Feb 23, 11:00�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > 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 rbwinn Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Feb 23, 11:02�pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > 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 rbwinn Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Feb 24, 6:47�am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:00:05 -0800, "rbwinn" > <rbwi...@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. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Feb 24, 6:47�am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:04:58 -0800, "rbwinn" > <rbwi...@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. > > >> Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Feb 24, 6:49�am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:02:16 -0800, "rbwinn" > <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: > > > > > > >On Feb 23, 7:09?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:53:52 -0800, "rbwinn" > >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: > > >> >On Feb 19, 8:18?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > >> >> rbwinn wrote: > >> >> > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: > >> >> > > rbwinn wrote: > >> >> > > > On Feb 14, 4:44?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. )ncoln said on > >> >> > > > > >several occasions that he believed the Bible. > > >> >> > > > > Source with complete context please. > > >> >> > > > I can give you the original source. !lk to Abraham Lincoln after the > >> >> > > > resurrection. % can tell you in person. > >> >> > > > Robert B. Winn > > >> >> > > I am seriously thinking of <plonking> you for the third time - what a > >> >> > > wally- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> > > - Show quoted text - > > >> >> > Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. / need to get irrational. > >> >> > Isaiah 2:17 > > >> nd the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the > > >> >> > haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall be > >> >> > exalted in that day. > >> >> > Quote
Guest jl Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Feb 23, 5:22 pm, "Day Brown" <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote: > Inasmuch as none of the Greek philosophers who invented the rules of > logic that have been applied to this question were atheist, one has to > pause for thot, as they certainly did. By and large, atheism is > sophistry. If one thinks there is no god, then what is the motivation > for trying to refute the premise that there is? Why should you fucking > care? You have no moral mandate to convert humanity. > > To argue that religion risks your own welfare with WMD may be so, but > not all religion. The Buddhist monks who destroyed the moral high > ground of the LBJ administration in Vietnam took pains to see that no > body else (in stark contrast to the Jihadim or innumerable examples of > Christian zealots) would be harmed when they immolated themselves in > front of the TV cameras. Any atheist would be hard put to find any > risk to his welfare from Buddhists, Taoists, Confucians and several > other obscure religions. > > No, the problem the atheist focuses on are the Levantine religions > based on various forms of scripture. If they could all agree on which > texts, or which interpretations of the holy word, that would be one > thing. But as David Hume pointed out, since they dont, how then can > you expect any of them to compromise what they say is divine word? The > result he saw was that they inevitably resort to the use of force, the > survivors assumed to be on "the side of god". I beg to differ; they > are on the side of the alpha males who have crafted a concept of the > divine that panders to their sensibilities, and justifies their > instinctive attempts to dominate others. > > These other Oriental, originally central asian Aryan, religions dont > have idea of the divine as an alpha male tyrant, and dont have the > problem. What they relied on, rather than scripture, was meditation, > sacred sex, and sacred potions to alter the state of consciousness and > have a direct experience of the divine presence. You dont need a > pope, bishop, rabbi, or mullah, or any of the steep pyramidal power > structures these men create to see the divine this way. Very interesting comment and a pleasure to read. I agree that the xian religion is an authoritarian design. Xianity by its nature attracts tyrants and promotes a planet of the apes dullness in its followers. Quote
Guest jl Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Feb 23, 8:58 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: [...] > > Cite, cite, cite! > > State of Arizona v. Robert B. Winn 2004 > Robert B. Winn Owing to the sloppy way you make unsupported assertions, I suspect you're in the Warren Jeff crowd. If you're in the Gordon Hinckley crowd, they ought to take you to the woodpile. Quote
Guest jl Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Feb 23, 9:09 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: [...] > All I know about it is that states started denying trial by jury. > When it all started everyone was quoting a minority opinion written by > Thurgood Marshall. 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. Wrong, wrong, wrong. That would be out of character for Marshall to advocate erosion of rights to trial by jury, and you can't even furnish a citation. Do you have no shame? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On 24 Feb 2007 06:34:07 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1172327646.751362.102810@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>: >On Feb 24, 6:49?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:02:16 -0800, "rbwinn" >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 23, 7:09?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:53:52 -0800, "rbwinn" >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >On Feb 19, 8:18?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: >> >> >> rbwinn wrote: >> >> >> > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > rbwinn wrote: >> >> >> > > > On Feb 14, 4:44?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. )ncoln said on >> >> >> > > > > >several occasions that he believed the Bible. >> >> >> >> > > > > Source with complete context please. >> >> >> >> > > > I can give you the original source. !lk to Abraham Lincoln after the >> >> >> > > > resurrection. % can tell you in person. >> >> >> > > > Robert B. Winn >> >> >> >> > > I am seriously thinking of <plonking> you for the third time - what a >> >> >> > > wally- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> > > - Show quoted text - >> >> >> >> > Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. / need to get irrational. >> >> >> > Isaiah 2:17 >> >> >> nd the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the >> >> >> >> > haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall be >> >> >> > exalted in that day. >> >> >> > /bert B. Winn >> >> >> >> Nothing could be MORE irrational than quoting ad infinitum, >> >> >> verses from an old book written by one primitive out of a gaggle of >> >> >> primitives >> >> >> >> Grow up- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> >> >How about this? Here is someone who thinks that his ancestors were >> >> >monkeys telling me to grow up. >> >> >> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! >> >> >> Every time a creationist says something like "you believe your >> >> ancestors were monkeys", the creationist is exposed as the dumbest >> >> fucking person on the planet. >> >Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. >> >> Crying about "profanity" is the last resort of one who has no >> argument to begin with, and merely demonstrates the lack of >> intelligence on the part of the complainer. >> >> Don > >If you want to use profanity, go use it on someone else. It does not >impress me. All it says is that you want to discontinue the >conversation. So go ahead and discontinue it. Why don't you learn the difference between profanity, which was not used, and vulgarity, which was, before you whine some more. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On 24 Feb 2007 06:26:54 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1172327214.029352.172230@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>: >On Feb 23, 11:02?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: >> 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. If I ask you >> > > > > > > > about Isaiah's account of the Assyrian invasion of Judea, you reply >> > > > > > > > with an inane question about fictional characters. �o, the >> > > > > > > > conversation is over. �ou are claiming that the Bible does not exist. >> >> > > > > > > Little Bobby is such a pathetic twit, but we should be nice to him; he >> > > > > > > does such good work for atheism. >> >> > > > > > Your personal attacks show everyone who you work for. >> > > > > > Robert B. Winn >> >> > > > > These - wizards, satans, evil spirits, $evils, lucifers, ghouls, diabolous, Auld Hornies, Fiends, Old Nicks etc., $o >> > > > > not exist ...........any more than your god exists. >> >> > > > > They, along with your god, were all manufactured by fearful humans long before you were borne Robert - get used to it- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > Well, the most common lie told by Satan is that the devil does not >> > > > exist. >> > > > Robert B. Winn >> >> > > Seen him have you? 9ou really do need help- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > - Show quoted text - >> >> > Why would a person who has seen Satan need help? >> >> You are a moat dishonest person. 4he question was whether you have seen him. >> >> Deviating again, because your god is nothing >> >Well, the problem with telling a person like you what I have seen or >not seen is that you would use it in a dishonest way. It is none of >your business what I have seen or not seen. So you are just making unsupportable claims. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On 24 Feb 2007 06:21:40 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1172326900.708340.78700@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>: >On Feb 23, 9:09?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On 23 Feb 2007 18:27:40 -0800, in alt.atheism >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> <1172284059.970326.74...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>: .... >> >Well, if you say Satan does not exist, you are speaking for Satan. f >> >that is not following Satan, what is it? >> >> What tendentious nonsense. You don't get to make an assertion that you >> have absolutely no evidence to support and then claim that all who >> disagree with you are supporting your imaginary invention. >> >> When you provide evidence that Satan exists, then I will believe you, >> until then, I will conclude that are you are incapable of either telling >> the truth or knowing the truth.- Hide quoted text - > >There is no way to provide you with evidence of anything because you >have already closed your mind toward all evidence. That is not a valid claim, since I have never rejected any evidence that you have offered. I cannot reject evidence if you never offer any and you have not. >What you are saying in this context is that evil does not exist. What hogwash. I never said any such thing. It takes a truly deluded person to make that claim. >If you want to >believe that evil does not exist, you are free to have that belief. Once again, I do not hold that belief and I have never made any statement to that effect. You are lying, again. >It does not mean anything to me if you believe evil does not exist. Why do you have to lie so often? What causes you to do this? Certainly there is nothing in LDS doctrine that teaches you to lie like this. Quote
Guest Dan@V.A. Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:7pfvt2d8vsctsvjk4bh473qjs3scf0b75h@4ax.com... > 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. > Whoever claimed that christians in the KKK murdered anyone in the past few weeks are lying. I question that there are any Christians in the KKK. The KKK is almost extinct. > Why does that > happen? You cannot show anywhere that I hate Christians as a group. > It doesn't apply to you? Good! I seriously doubt you have ever personally witnessed a cross burning or a KKK march in your entire life. You mentioned good christians in the KKK killing people, I would bet you have _never_ personally witnessed any such event yourself. Neither have I and I live in the South. KKK lynching is a thing of the past. > > 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? > Slavery was only one of several issues involved in the Civil War. The direct cause of the war was the secession of several Southern States beginning with S. Carolina. This war was fought to preserve the Union. Slavery was _not_ illegal at the time of the secession. Slavery was injected as a cause later in order to give the war a moral basis. President Lincoln Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda move, since it applied only to the South where it had no relevance. Neither did it apply to the Union states such as Maryland, Delaware, Missouri etc. Slavery was not illegal until Dec., 1865. Slavery was not limited to the South: all of the colonies had slavery. during colonial days. > 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? > This is just propaganda. Christians cease to be Christian when they willfully and deliberately commit sin, according to everything I ever heard. Murder is definably sin. My Mother was a dedicated Christian. She would never commit not rationalize murder. Dan Wood, DDS Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:29:23 -0500, in alt.atheism "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in <HB_Dh.10862$e8.6438@bignews1.bellsouth.net>: > >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >news:7pfvt2d8vsctsvjk4bh473qjs3scf0b75h@4ax.com... >> 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. >> >Whoever claimed that christians in the KKK murdered anyone in the >past few weeks are lying. I question that there are any Christians in >the KKK. The KKK is almost extinct. Everyone in the KKK claimed to be Christian. >> Why does that happen? You cannot show anywhere that I hate Christians as a group. >> >It doesn't apply to you? Good! I seriously doubt you have ever personally >witnessed a cross burning or a KKK march in your entire life. You >mentioned good christians in the KKK killing people, I would bet >you have _never_ personally witnessed any such event yourself. >Neither have I and I live in the South. KKK lynching is a thing of the past. That is good. I hope that is true, except we know that people justify their attacks on abortion clinics, murders of doctors and murders of gays with their supposed Christianity. Some Christians rightly condemn such vile acts, but others claim that the victims are condemned by God and, essentially, condone such attacks and murders. >> 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? >> >Slavery was only one of several issues involved in the Civil War. The direct >cause of the war was the secession of several Southern States beginning >with S. Carolina. This war was fought to preserve the Union. Slavery was >_not_ illegal at the time of the secession. Slavery was injected as a cause >later in order to give the war a moral basis. President Lincoln Emancipation >Proclamation was a propaganda move, since it applied only to the South >where it had no relevance. Neither did it apply to the Union states such >as Maryland, Delaware, Missouri etc. Slavery was not illegal until Dec., >1865. Slavery was not limited to the South: all of the colonies had slavery. >during colonial days. I understand that, but the Southern Baptist Convention, among other slavery-friendly institutions, intentionally broke from their other American Baptist fellows because they wanted to defend slavery. They claimed that it was just fine to own a slave and kill it. Those were the kinds of people who broke away from the Union and attacked the Union. >> 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? >> >This is just propaganda. Christians cease to be Christian when they >willfully and deliberately commit sin, according to everything I ever >heard. Murder is definably sin. My Mother was a dedicated Christian. >She would never commit not rationalize murder. No, it isn't. The slaveholders thought that murdering their slaves was just fine, they liked it so much that they changed the law to make certain that it wasn't called murder. After the revolt of the slaveholders was put down, the intellectual and spiritual heirs of the slaveholders still went around murdering blacks. Even though those murders were indeed technically crimes, no one bothered to do anything about it. As far as I can tell, using your criteria, there were no Christians in the South until the laws against murdering blacks started to be enforced. That seems to be sometime after 1964. Quote
Guest Darrell Stec Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 After serious contemplation, on or about Saturday 24 February 2007 1:34 am Michael Gray perhaps from mikegray@newsguy.com wrote: > 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. > > -- Yup, and I explained why in a post several days ago. To make matters worse he isn't using the original which at least had a preface that said the translation was not inerrant because no translation could accurately convey the meaning especially on some ancient words for which we have no meaning. Those translators attempted to be somewhat accurate within the bounds of their biased theology and the pressures of the king. I think the most ironic thing was that the Erasmus Greek version which they used for their "original" was highly influenced by the Roman Catholic Church and the Latin Vulgate and that translation wasn't even a century old. Had they waited a year more they would have had a much better Greek translation from which to work. Still not as good as what we have available. Years and years and years ago, I used to sell books and magazines door to door. Among them were bibles too. Boy do I have a collection of stories about that. -- Later, Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com Webpage Sorcery http://webpagesorcery.com We Put the Magic in Your Webpages Quote
Guest Darrell Stec Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 After serious contemplation, on or about Saturday 24 February 2007 1:23 am bob young perhaps from alaspectrum@netvigator.com wrote: > > > 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 > I'm right about at that stage now too. I do think he needs some serious mental help (but then what do I know, I only use to teach college psychology). >> >> >> -- >> Later, >> Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com >> >> Webpage Sorcery >> http://webpagesorcery.com >> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages -- Later, Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com Webpage Sorcery http://webpagesorcery.com We Put the Magic in Your Webpages Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:47:46 -0600, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: - Refer: <5fg0u2lq7hqp5g0gt3dne2c34hktib1fdg@4ax.com> >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. He has been caught lying again, knows it, but doesn't have the balls to admit it. So, like most true Christians, he lies, cheats, and defrauds to get "his way". -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:22:02 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <2gp0u2t4so5tffncsre4jniec3mgle9mmn@4ax.com> >On 24 Feb 2007 06:34:07 -0800, in alt.atheism >"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in ><1172327646.751362.102810@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>: >>On Feb 24, 6:49?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >>> In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:02:16 -0800, "rbwinn" >>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >On Feb 23, 7:09?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >>> >> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:53:52 -0800, "rbwinn" >>> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >>> >>> >> >On Feb 19, 8:18?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: >>> >> >> rbwinn wrote: >>> >> >> > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: >>> >> >> > > rbwinn wrote: >>> >> >> > > > On Feb 14, 4:44?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. )ncoln said on >>> >> >> > > > > >several occasions that he believed the Bible. >>> >>> >> >> > > > > Source with complete context please. >>> >>> >> >> > > > I can give you the original source. !lk to Abraham Lincoln after the >>> >> >> > > > resurrection. % can tell you in person. >>> >> >> > > > Robert B. Winn >>> >>> >> >> > > I am seriously thinking of <plonking> you for the third time - what a >>> >> >> > > wally- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> >> >> > > - Show quoted text - >>> >>> >> >> > Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. / need to get irrational. >>> >> >> > Isaiah 2:17 >>> >>> >> nd the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the >>> >>> >> >> > haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall be >>> >> >> > exalted in that day. >>> >> >> > /bert B. Winn >>> >>> >> >> Nothing could be MORE irrational than quoting ad infinitum, >>> >> >> verses from an old book written by one primitive out of a gaggle of >>> >> >> primitives >>> >>> >> >> Grow up- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> >> >> - Show quoted text - >>> >>> >> >How about this? Here is someone who thinks that his ancestors were >>> >> >monkeys telling me to grow up. >>> >>> >> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! >>> >>> >> Every time a creationist says something like "you believe your >>> >> ancestors were monkeys", the creationist is exposed as the dumbest >>> >> fucking person on the planet. >>> >Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. >>> >>> Crying about "profanity" is the last resort of one who has no >>> argument to begin with, and merely demonstrates the lack of >>> intelligence on the part of the complainer. >>> >>> Don >> >>If you want to use profanity, go use it on someone else. It does not >>impress me. All it says is that you want to discontinue the >>conversation. So go ahead and discontinue it. > >Why don't you learn the difference between profanity, which was not >used, and vulgarity, which was, before you whine some more. Hey yeah, that would make a great stalling tactic. I bet he actually folows your advice this once! -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:22:37 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <rhp0u2tkecj62dap0cnp9240cisu886urj@4ax.com> >On 24 Feb 2007 06:26:54 -0800, in alt.atheism >"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in ><1172327214.029352.172230@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>: >>On Feb 23, 11:02?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: >>> 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. If I ask you >>> > > > > > > > about Isaiah's account of the Assyrian invasion of Judea, you reply >>> > > > > > > > with an inane question about fictional characters. �o, the >>> > > > > > > > conversation is over. �ou are claiming that the Bible does not exist. >>> >>> > > > > > > Little Bobby is such a pathetic twit, but we should be nice to him; he >>> > > > > > > does such good work for atheism. >>> >>> > > > > > Your personal attacks show everyone who you work for. >>> > > > > > Robert B. Winn >>> >>> > > > > These - wizards, satans, evil spirits, $evils, lucifers, ghouls, diabolous, Auld Hornies, Fiends, Old Nicks etc., $o >>> > > > > not exist ...........any more than your god exists. >>> >>> > > > > They, along with your god, were all manufactured by fearful humans long before you were borne Robert - get used to it- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> > > > Well, the most common lie told by Satan is that the devil does not >>> > > > exist. >>> > > > Robert B. Winn >>> >>> > > Seen him have you? 9ou really do need help- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> > > - Show quoted text - >>> >>> > Why would a person who has seen Satan need help? >>> >>> You are a moat dishonest person. 4he question was whether you have seen him. >>> >>> Deviating again, because your god is nothing >>> >>Well, the problem with telling a person like you what I have seen or >>not seen is that you would use it in a dishonest way. It is none of >>your business what I have seen or not seen. > >So you are just making unsupportable claims. No change there. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 On 24 Feb 2007 04:23:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote: - Refer: <45E011C4.6CA710C2@netvigator.com> > > >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. The two things are totally separate. It is completely obvious to any normal human child that the wafer does not turn into anything different, let alone human flesh, the wine does NOT turn into blood when a priest mumbles incantations over it, and the child performs a scientific test with his or her mouth after every supposed miracle. The test always proves that the priest has lied. The wafer is still a wafer. The wine is still very cheap vino. And they are all able to identify flesh and blood orally. For the child who has not cut him or herself and seen and licked actual flesh, nor sucked their own blood from a cut finger, would be most rare indeed. This does not require any scientific sophistication in the youth whatsoever. Australian aboriginal kids living the traditional lifestyle are aware of this basic fact of their own physiology, for instance. To all children it would be obvious that the priest is lying to them, and DEMANDING that they repeat the lie weekly, if not daily, at the very least. This is so elementary that I fail to see why you consider that this form of lying, even in youth, would slip by unnoticed. Or even worse, that it is somehow rendered "excusable" by later good deeds. It is the role of the church to ensure that such lies ARE accepted and ingrained into the child to the point of unquestioned acceptance, yet a moment's thought on the matter would reveal it's fraudulent nature! And this is but ONE example of duplicity that is DEMANDED by the various churches, in order to remain communicate. There are hundreds more to choose from if this strikingly clear example does not suit your "taste", or perhaps the Xtian Cult of your contemplation. Once again, we appear to be at quite opposite and extreme ends of this particular spectrum. So far as I can determine it, your stance is to wave away the lying aspect, and apologetically assert that they are otherwise good. This assessment of "goodness" seems to completely ignore the very real fact that by simply being passive members of the religion, they tacitly approve of, fund, encourage, and support the more extreme actions of their church, up to and including genocide; even if by not actively restraining it. I'd hardly call that "being good". >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. That's as may be. But if it is to be germane to this topic, it is incumbent upon you to show that she never lied due to her Christianity, and/or that she never used her Christianity to con anyone, even elliptically. Don't forget that your kind old Aunt actively and knowingly supported, (even if by willful neglect of keeping tabs on what her donations of cash, time, effort etc were funding), the rape of little kiddies, the torture of orphans, the oppression of minorities etc etc. You know the litany all too well, but appear to be in severe denial. I can partly understand this attitude, but that in no way means that I have assent to it, and especially not that I must agree with it. >What are your views on Islam and Hinduism? I have outlined a brief response to these questions in another message (to you?). You may wish to excuse my peremptory tone, but I have little enough time to give you a considered reply, (at the moment), let alone one that is littered with the courtesy that you have so rightly earned. Accept my apologies, please. -- Quote
Guest Libertarius Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 You guys are looking for the wrong "GOD". The only "supreme being" that can and does really exist through eternity was identified by Baruch Spinoza. Of course he was cursed by Jews and denounced by Christians for it, because he shows the deities described in the Bible are just man-made fantasy creations. -- L. Quote
Guest Semper Lib Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:pjqnt2l1sl7fo5fflhd3uioj2u9v97cahb@4ax.com... > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 06:34:05 GMT, "Semper Lib Quote
Guest Semper Lib Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 "jl" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1172064169.603657.251320@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... On Feb 21, 1:34 am, "Semper Lib Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:12:59 GMT, "Semper Lib 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.