Guest Pastor Frank Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1172556377.226916.64810@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com... On Feb 26, 8:20�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > Yet the Bible that you worship approves of slavery. Why do you disagree > with the Bible?- Hide quoted text - > I don't worship the Bible. Paul's instructions on the subject were to a slave who had run away from a church member who had slaves and to the slaveowner himself. His concern at the time was to prevent an outbreak of runaway slaves that would bring persecution on the church. Paul was not in favor of slavery. Robert B. Winn > No need to explain nor defend, for the atheist hasn't proved his case for you "worshipping the Bible", nor that "the Bible approves of slavery". Those are just bait to keep you from mentioning the name above all names, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest jl Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 On Feb 26, 9:04 am, "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote: > "bob young" <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote in message > > news:45DE75BE.81EF8CFF@netvigator.com... > > > > > Pastor Frank wrote: > > >> Our Christian "God is love" and there is nothing "pitiful" about > >> love. > >> Nor does love "lie". If atheism is not a philosophy of life, then why are > >> you wasting your life arguing against our philosophy of life, unless you > >> think your philosophy of life is better? > >> You just got yourself all muddled again. > > > You are the muddled one, > > 'He' was supposed to have sent his only begotten son down to earth and > > then had > > him ascend up to a heaven somewhere [just above the clouds back then] > > > 'Love' alone can do that? > > GROAN > > So you want to be a literalist. Let's see you interpret the Biblical > poetic format constructively. And no Jesus didn't just become weightless and > float like a helium filled balloon up and away into the sky. LOL You are correct. The bones of Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Jesus's wife, Mary Magdalene, and Jesus's son Judah were just found in some ancient crypts in Jerusalem. One religion down, one to go, as soon as they find the filthy bones of Mahomet the Paedophile. Quote
Guest stumper Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 Pastor Frank wrote: > <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message > news:1172554645.503230.296520@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> On 22 feb, 17:08, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote: >>> "Free Lunch" wrote in >>> messagenews:8vnpt2dbg15v1o4t4gi1od6t5c2d1r8el6@4ax.com... >>>> There is no evidence for God or Satan or any other gods of Christianity >>>> or any other religions. >>> I respect this as a tenet of your belief that you religiously adhere to >>> and >>> evangelistically proclaim. >> You shouldn't >> If you disagree, you should produce the evidence. >> You do not, therefore I suspect you agree. >> Peter van Velzen >> February 2007 >> Thung Song >> Thailand >> > You haven't been around much, or you would know that there are gods > aplenty in our museums and libraries, containing both concrete and abstract > gods. In Thailand you will find people having altars stocked with gods of > all kinds. > What atheists mean is: There are no gods of atheist definition, and we > theists tend to agree with them. > I guess you have done this thousands of times. But humor me and tell me one more time, please. What is your definition of your god(s)? -- ~Stumper Quote
Guest Day Brown Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 jl wrote: > Very interesting comment and a pleasure to read. Well thanx; I so often see flaming. > 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. Another pleasure for me to read was Robin Lane Fox, "The Christians and the Pagans" about the transformation of the empire in the mere 60 years from Constantine to Justinian. One of the things he reports that rings bells is how the elders felt the young people, who had adopted a new religion, were damned. Families were very distressed with members having such different cosmologies. Marriages broke up and children were disowned. Lotsa wealthy women had kookie ideas and funded groups meeting in obscure locations. The activities were almost always trivial, but the stories about what went on fueled the anxiety. Its remarkable when you think of how the established religion existed for uncounted centuries, yet in just a couple generations, a cult grew to take over the whole system. And as you say, has been useful to tyrants and oligarchs ever since. Course, there are a lotta stupid people out there, who as Gibbon commented, would believe damn near anything. Caesar said the Gauls were slaves to uncertain reports, and he circulated a lot of them in taking over. So, now, we have the net, full of uncertain reports, and drivel written by and for the dullest of followers. I cant tell whether the net will make a difference or not now with people that are so stupid and crazy. But the rest of us dont need to meet in catacombs. Its lots easier to exchange ideas on what to do. I see the preference for consensus, but events can get out of hand really quickly before there is time to organize resources for mutual benefit. Do you have a plan if the economy tanks? Quote
Guest jl Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 On Feb 28, 6:09 pm, "Day Brown" <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote: [...] > Do you have a plan if the economy tanks? Yes, subsistence farming, if necessary. Survivor here. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 05:01:50 +0800, in alt.atheism "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in <45e5e38b$0$16375$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: ><pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message >news:1172554645.503230.296520@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> On 22 feb, 17:08, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote: >>> "Free Lunch" wrote in >>> messagenews:8vnpt2dbg15v1o4t4gi1od6t5c2d1r8el6@4ax.com... >>> > >>> > There is no evidence for God or Satan or any other gods of Christianity >>> > or any other religions. >>> >>> I respect this as a tenet of your belief that you religiously adhere to >>> and >>> evangelistically proclaim. >> >> You shouldn't >> If you disagree, you should produce the evidence. >> You do not, therefore I suspect you agree. >> Peter van Velzen >> February 2007 >> Thung Song >> Thailand >> > You haven't been around much, or you would know that there are gods >aplenty in our museums and libraries, containing both concrete and abstract >gods. In Thailand you will find people having altars stocked with gods of >all kinds. > What atheists mean is: There are no gods of atheist definition, and we >theists tend to agree with them. It would be interesting if you could point to evidence that those who have these statues think that the statues themselves are the gods rather than representations of the gods. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 On 28 Feb 2007 04:00:05 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1172664005.690889.184180@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>: >On Feb 27, 8:27?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On 27 Feb 2007 19:06:15 -0800, in alt.atheism >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> <1172631975.817817.307...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 27, 6:59?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> On 26 Feb 2007 22:06:17 -0800, in alt.atheism >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> >> <1172556377.226916.64...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 8:20?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> On 26 Feb 2007 19:08:45 -0800, in alt.atheism >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> >> >> <1172545725.523360.319...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 5:32 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 25 Feb 2007 17:23:09 -0800, in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> <1172452989.091439.309...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >The Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case that a runaway slave >> >> >> >> >had to be returned to his owner if he fled to another state. (at was >> >> >> >> >the last Supreme Court ruling on slavery. / now you are saying that >> >> >> >> >the Supreme Court has made another erroneous decision. %ll, that >> >> >> >> >does not really surprise me. >> >> >> >> >> What an absurd claim. At the time, the decision was correct, even though >> >> >> >> it was absolutely repugnant from the modern viewpoint for almost all >> >> >> >> Americans. The Congress and states changed the Constitution so that the >> >> >> >> Dred Scott case is no longer valid. >> >> >> >> >> You really have no idea what you are talking about, whether in religion >> >> >> >> or law. I would not be surprised based on your behavior here if you were >> >> >> >> an ignorant blowhard in other areas of knowledge as well.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> >If you want to return runaway slaves, that would be your choice. >> >> >> >> You, of course, know you are making an utterly absurd claim. >> >> >> >> >My opinion is that you have no right to try to practice slavery. >> >> >> >> Yet the Bible that you worship approves of slavery. Why do you disagree >> >> >> with the Bible?- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >I don't worship the Bible. !ul's instructions on the subject were to >> >> >a slave who had run away from a church member who had slaves and to >> >> >the slaveowner himself. )s concern at the time was to prevent an >> >> >outbreak of runaway slaves that would bring persecution on the >> >> >church. �aul was not in favor of slavery. >> >> >> So you reject the teachings found in the Old Testament and you deny that >> >> the Southern Baptists and all other proponents of slavery in 1860 were >> >> Christian.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >Well, if Satan has put that accusation in your mind, then it is in >> >your mind along with whatever other accusations Satan has put there. >> >Too bad that is all you have in your mind. >> >> I have no reason to believe that Satan exists. No evidence supports your >> claim that he did anything or even that he does exist.- Hide quoted text - >Well, here is another atheist claiming that evil does not exist in the >world. Hoe many times will I have to remind you that I have not said that and that you are lying when you recharacterize my comments that way? Why should I bother with your repeated dishonesty? Why should anyone here think that you are remotely a follower of Jesus when lies fall from your posts so easily? >According to atheists, whatever happens is good except for >those things done by Christians. Another one of your unlimited reservoir of lies. What a waste. -- "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 Free Lunch Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 04:26:52 +0800, in alt.atheism "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in <45e5e381$0$16375$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >news:dp87u2puojrjnf1cm9nnjsi0mi2cc56msv@4ax.com... >> On 26 Feb 2007 19:08:45 -0800, in alt.atheism >> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in >> <1172545725.523360.319420@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>: >>>On Feb 26, 5:32 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>> On 25 Feb 2007 17:23:09 -0800, in alt.atheism >>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >>>> <1172452989.091439.309...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>: >> >>>> >The Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case that a runaway slave >>>> >had to be returned to his owner if he fled to another state. That was >>>> >the last Supreme Court ruling on slavery. So now you are saying that >>>> >the Supreme Court has made another erroneous decision. Well, that >>>> >does not really surprise me. >>>> >>>> What an absurd claim. At the time, the decision was correct, even though >>>> it was absolutely repugnant from the modern viewpoint for almost all >>>> Americans. The Congress and states changed the Constitution so that the >>>> Dred Scott case is no longer valid. >>>> >>>> You really have no idea what you are talking about, whether in religion >>>> or law. I would not be surprised based on your behavior here if you were >>>> an ignorant blowhard in other areas of knowledge as well.- Hide quoted >>>> text - >>>> >>>If you want to return runaway slaves, that would be your choice. >> >> You, of course, know you are making an utterly absurd claim. >> >>>My opinion is that you have no right to try to practice slavery. >> >> Yet the Bible that you worship approves of slavery. Why do you disagree >> with the Bible? >> > Quote please! Where does the Christian NT Bible "approve of slavery"? Not only does Paul approve of slavery, but he expects women to act as if they are slaves as well. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 04:11:54 +0800, in alt.atheism "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in <45e5e37c$0$16375$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: >"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message >news:1172545881.572790.37170@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>> You've made a claim that you cannot support. You've made prior claims >>> that are demonstrably wrong. It is appropriate and necessary to let >>> people know that you are untrustworthy. Your claim to be religious does >>> not change that.- Hide quoted text - >> >> Spoken like an atheist. You have said that our freedom depends on >> permission from atheists. No, sorry, our freedom has nothing to do >> with you or your corrupt philosophies. Jeswus Christ was the one who >> said we were free. >> Robert B. Winn >> > Exactly right. Our rights and freedoms rest in God, not in the law nor >in the courts, nor constitution, nor in government etc. That means they >cannot be recinded by man. So why are the most virulently radical American 'Christians' the ones who are willing to let President Bush destroy our civil liberties? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 04:47:35 +0800, in alt.atheism "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in <45e5e387$0$16375$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >news:si97u2dnesiglif5hpsh73dmvn2v5a3ufv@4ax.com... >> >> Do you have evidence that perjury was committed or are you just telling >> us stories the way you do when you make things up with your religious >> beliefs? >> > "Making things up" now with you atheist beliefs or rather disbeliefs? I asked a question because Mr. Winn has proven that he is unreliable. If you had bothered to follow his postings, you would know that he cheerfully lies about many items. Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1172556961.386584.45770@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... On Feb 26, 8:25�pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > I don't. I just think it's amusing how childish you are. > I have never thought you were amusing. And you are not childish. You are evil. Robert B. Winn --------- These insults are just refuting ploys by Satan's minions to make people STOP talking about Jesus. Will we let them? Hell NO!!!! We will shout His most holy and perfect name from the roof tops if need be, and no atheists are going to stop us!!!!! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1172557079.541789.112280@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... On Feb 26, 8:26�pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 06:46:29 -0800, "rbwinn" > > No, since there's no such thing. And I told you what it means > to argue style-over-substance, which is what you did. > There is no such thing as profanity? So now not only the Bible does not exist, but also profanity does not exist. Robert B. Winn ------------ That nothing a religionist talks about exists, is one of atheism's most sacred doctrines. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 On Feb 28, 6:56�am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote: > In our last episode, > <1172664408.045323.104...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, > the lovely and talented rbwinn > broadcast on alt.atheism: > > > > > > > On Feb 28, 5:11?am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote: > >> In our last episode, > >> <1172662555.211807.27...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, > >> the lovely and talented rbwinn > >> broadcast on alt.atheism: > >> > You Europeans > > >> OH? ?You are not as European as I am? ?Or is "Winn" a slave name? > > >> > buy into every lie that becomes popular. ?Your archeology in this instance > >> > is about as reliable as the rest of your archeology. ?The body of Jesus > >> > was resurrected. > > >> If by resurrected you mean about to become the foundation of an apartment > >> building, you are right. > > > I am not as European as you are. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 On Feb 28, 7:57�am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On 27 Feb 2007 20:41:53 -0800, "rbwinn" > <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: > > > > > > >On Feb 27, 8:31?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On 27 Feb 2007 18:59:01 -0800, "rbwinn" > >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: > > >> >On Feb 27, 6:43?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> >> In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 22:17:59 -0800, "rbwinn" > >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: > > >> >> >On Feb 26, 8:26?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 06:46:29 -0800, "rbwinn" > >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: > > >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 7:11 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 25 Feb 2007 17:51:34 -0800, "rbwinn" > >> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: > > >> >> >> >> >On Feb 25, 5:17?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:34:07 -0800, "rbwinn" > >> >> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: > > >> >> >> >> >> >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: > >> >> >> >> Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 On Feb 28, 7:58�am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On 27 Feb 2007 20:29:26 -0800, "rbwinn" > <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: > > > > > > >On Feb 27, 8:31?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On 27 Feb 2007 18:55:55 -0800, "rbwinn" > >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: > > >> >On Feb 27, 6:42?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> >> In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 22:16:01 -0800, "rbwinn" > >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: > > >> >> >On Feb 26, 8:25?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 06:50:36 -0800, "rbwinn" > >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: > > >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 7:09 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 25 Feb 2007 17:50:25 -0800, "rbwinn" > >> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: > > >> >> >> >> >On Feb 25, 5:16?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:32:15 -0800, "rbwinn" > >> >> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: > > >> >> >> >> >> >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" > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Well, here we have another statement from an atheist denying the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >existence of the Bible. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> /, 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. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> ( please, Bobby. IKYABWAI is so kindergarten. > >> >> >> >> >> >So don't try it on me. > > >> >> >> >> >> Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 On Feb 28, 9:18�am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Feb 27, 10:01 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 On Feb 28, 4:39�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On 28 Feb 2007 04:00:05 -0800, in alt.atheism > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > <1172664005.690889.184...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > > >On Feb 27, 8:27?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On 27 Feb 2007 19:06:15 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > >> <1172631975.817817.307...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >On Feb 27, 6:59?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> On 26 Feb 2007 22:06:17 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > >> >> <1172556377.226916.64...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >> >On Feb 26, 8:20?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> On 26 Feb 2007 19:08:45 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > >> >> >> <1172545725.523360.319...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 5:32 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 25 Feb 2007 17:23:09 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > >> >> >> >> <1172452989.091439.309...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >> >> ... > > >> >> >> >> >The Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case that a runaway slave > >> >> >> >> >had to be returned to his owner if he fled to another state. (at was > >> >> >> >> >the last Supreme Court ruling on slavery. / now you are saying that > >> >> >> >> >the Supreme Court has made another erroneous decision. %ll, that > >> >> >> >> >does not really surprise me. > > >> >> >> >> What an absurd claim. At the time, the decision was correct, even though > >> >> >> >> it was absolutely repugnant from the modern viewpoint for almost all > >> >> >> >> Americans. The Congress and states changed the Constitution so that the > >> >> >> >> Dred Scott case is no longer valid. > > >> >> >> >> You really have no idea what you are talking about, whether in religion > >> >> >> >> or law. I would not be surprised based on your behavior here if you were > >> >> >> >> an ignorant blowhard in other areas of knowledge as well.- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> >> >If you want to return runaway slaves, that would be your choice. > > >> >> >> You, of course, know you are making an utterly absurd claim. > > >> >> >> >My opinion is that you have no right to try to practice slavery. > > >> >> >> Yet the Bible that you worship approves of slavery. Why do you disagree > >> >> >> with the Bible?- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> >I don't worship the Bible. !ul's instructions on the subject were to > >> >> >a slave who had run away from a church member who had slaves and to > >> >> >the slaveowner himself. )s concern at the time was to prevent an > >> >> >outbreak of runaway slaves that would bring persecution on the > >> >> >church. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 In alt.atheism On 28 Feb 2007 16:29:23 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that: >On Feb 28, 7:58?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> In alt.atheism On 27 Feb 2007 20:29:26 -0800, "rbwinn" >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 27, 8:31?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> In alt.atheism On 27 Feb 2007 18:55:55 -0800, "rbwinn" >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >On Feb 27, 6:42?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 22:16:01 -0800, "rbwinn" >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 8:25?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 06:50:36 -0800, "rbwinn" >> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 7:09 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 25 Feb 2007 17:50:25 -0800, "rbwinn" >> >> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 25, 5:16?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:32:15 -0800, "rbwinn" >> >> >> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >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" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Well, here we have another statement from an atheist denying the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >existence of the Bible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> /, 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ( please, Bobby. IKYABWAI is so kindergarten. >> >> >> >> >> >> >So don't try it on me. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> �YABWAI followed with IKYABWAI is really childish. >> >> >> >> >> >> >Well, you can stop doing it any time, Don. >> >> >> >> >> >> �ow--you did it a 3rd time! >> >> >> >> >> >> �heesh--how childish are you? >> >> >> >> >I don't see why you would want to base your life on what I do or don't >> >> >> >> >do. >> >> >> >> >> don't. I just think it's amusing how childish you are. >> >> >> >> >I have never thought you were amusing. >> >> >> >> That's because I'm educational. >> >> >> >> > And you are not childish. >> >> >> >> That's because I don't believe in god. The upshot is that >> >> >> those who believe in god are childish. >> >> >> >> Don >> >> >Satan believes in God, >> >> >> No, there's no such thing as satan. >> >> >> Though if there were, you'd know that satan is merely a >> >> description--a title. If you'd read Numbers chapter 22, specifically >> >> from verse 20 through 26, you'd find that satan isn't what you think >> >> it is. >> >> >> Don >> >I thought you said you did not believe the Bible, >> >> You, OTOH, do. Ergo, you should believe the words in it. Ergo, >> you should know what a satan is, according to Numbers 22:20-26. >> >> Don >A satan is an accuser. Or an adversary. Which is what the angel of the lord was in that section. In fact, you'll note that if you actually use a concordance (like Strong's), the word listed is "satan". 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 March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 In alt.atheism On 28 Feb 2007 16:27:16 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that: >On Feb 28, 7:57?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> In alt.atheism On 27 Feb 2007 20:41:53 -0800, "rbwinn" >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 27, 8:31?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> In alt.atheism On 27 Feb 2007 18:59:01 -0800, "rbwinn" >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >On Feb 27, 6:43?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 22:17:59 -0800, "rbwinn" >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 8:26?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 06:46:29 -0800, "rbwinn" >> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 7:11 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 25 Feb 2007 17:51:34 -0800, "rbwinn" >> >> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 25, 5:17?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:34:07 -0800, "rbwinn" >> >> >> >> >> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >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: >> >> >> >> >> rying about "profanity" is the last resort of one who hasno >> >> >> >> >> argument to begin with, and merely demonstrates the lack of >> >> >> >> >> intelligence on the part of the complainer. >> >> >> >> >> >> �e can keep doing this until you repent of your >> >> >> >> >> style-over-substance fallacy. Which you won't do, since you haven't an >> >> >> >> >> argument to begin with. Crying about "profanity" is just a cover to >> >> >> >> >> keep people from learning that you have no argument, but it always >> >> >> >> >> backfires, since it SIGNALS that you have no argument. >> >> >> >> >> >I never claimed to be arguing, Don. >> >> >> >> >> �hat's good, since you are incapable of holding any sort of >> >> >> >> rational argument. >> >> >> >> >> > What is there to argue about? % >> >> >> >> >have freedom of religion here in the United States. /u are free to >> >> >> >> >be an atheist if that is what you want to be. /u decided to try some >> >> >> >> >profanity on me. >> >> >> >> >> �o, since there's no such thing. And I told you what it means >> >> >> >> to argue style-over-substance, which is what you did. >> >> >> >> >There is no such thing as profanity? >> >> >> >> Yep. >> >> >> >> Now, if you would bother to back your claim that atheists say >> >> >> that the bible doesn't exist (which I know you can't), we can make fun >> >> >> of you for being so fucking stupid as to make such a statement. >> >> >Atheists claim the Bible does not exist, >> >> >> Liar. >> >> >Well, what about profanity, >> >> Doesn't exist. But that has nothing to do with your lie that >> atheists claim that the bible doesn't exist. >> >> Don > >Well, you just take a more direct approach with profanity. Liar. 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 Free Lunch Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 On 28 Feb 2007 18:41:28 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1172716888.888174.142960@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: >On Feb 28, 4:39?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On 28 Feb 2007 04:00:05 -0800, in alt.atheism >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> <1172664005.690889.184...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 27, 8:27?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> On 27 Feb 2007 19:06:15 -0800, in alt.atheism >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> >> <1172631975.817817.307...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >On Feb 27, 6:59?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> On 26 Feb 2007 22:06:17 -0800, in alt.atheism >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> >> >> <1172556377.226916.64...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 8:20?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 26 Feb 2007 19:08:45 -0800, in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> <1172545725.523360.319...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 26, 5:32 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 25 Feb 2007 17:23:09 -0800, in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> >> <1172452989.091439.309...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case that a runaway slave >> >> >> >> >> >had to be returned to his owner if he fled to another state. (at was >> >> >> >> >> >the last Supreme Court ruling on slavery. / now you are saying that >> >> >> >> >> >the Supreme Court has made another erroneous decision. %ll, that >> >> >> >> >> >does not really surprise me. >> >> >> >> >> >> What an absurd claim. At the time, the decision was correct, even though >> >> >> >> >> it was absolutely repugnant from the modern viewpoint for almost all >> >> >> >> >> Americans. The Congress and states changed the Constitution so that the >> >> >> >> >> Dred Scott case is no longer valid. >> >> >> >> >> >> You really have no idea what you are talking about, whether in religion >> >> >> >> >> or law. I would not be surprised based on your behavior here if you were >> >> >> >> >> an ignorant blowhard in other areas of knowledge as well.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> >> >If you want to return runaway slaves, that would be your choice. >> >> >> >> >> You, of course, know you are making an utterly absurd claim. >> >> >> >> >> >My opinion is that you have no right to try to practice slavery. >> >> >> >> >> Yet the Bible that you worship approves of slavery. Why do you disagree >> >> >> >> with the Bible?- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> >I don't worship the Bible. !ul's instructions on the subject were to >> >> >> >a slave who had run away from a church member who had slaves and to >> >> >> >the slaveowner himself. )s concern at the time was to prevent an >> >> >> >outbreak of runaway slaves that would bring persecution on the >> >> >> >church. !ul was not in favor of slavery. >> >> >> >> So you reject the teachings found in the Old Testament and you deny that >> >> >> the Southern Baptists and all other proponents of slavery in 1860 were >> >> >> Christian.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >Well, if Satan has put that accusation in your mind, then it is in >> >> >your mind along with whatever other accusations Satan has put there. >> >> >Too bad that is all you have in your mind. >> >> >> I have no reason to believe that Satan exists. No evidence supports your >> >> claim that he did anything or even that he does exist.- Hide quoted text - >> >Well, here is another atheist claiming that evil does not exist in the >> >world. >> >> Hoe many times will I have to remind you that I have not said that and >> that you are lying when you recharacterize my comments that way? Why >> should I bother with your repeated dishonesty? Why should anyone here >> think that you are remotely a follower of Jesus when lies fall from your >> posts so easily? >> >> >According to atheists, whatever happens is good except for >> >those things done by Christians. >> >> Another one of your unlimited reservoir of lies. What a waste. >> -- >> >> "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- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >I was not the one claiming that God has disappeared. Nor have I. There is no evidence that any gods were ever around, so there is no evidence that they could have disappeared. Quote
Guest Paul Duca Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 in article 1172662369.154545.34300@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com, rbwinn at rbwinn3@juno.com wrote on 2/28/07 6:32 AM: > On Feb 27, 10:19?pm, Paul Duca <p.d...@comcast.net> wrote: >> in article 1172546142.249794.79...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com, rbwinn at >> rbwi...@juno.com wrote on 2/26/07 10:15 PM: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 26, 7:54 pm, Paul Duca <p.d...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> in article 1172454559.575420.50...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com, rbwinn at >>>> rbwi...@juno.com wrote on 2/25/07 8:49 PM: >> >>>>> On Feb 25, 5:15?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >>>>>> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:29:31 -0800, "rbwinn" >>>>>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that: >> >>>>>>> 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 Semper Lib Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:uuv1u2p2k5riq9m20932e4hv9afgmj2enc@4ax.com... > On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:12:59 GMT, "Semper Lib Quote
Guest Semper Lib Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:1172395014.807620.288080@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... On 25 Feb., 03:12, "Semper Lib Quote
Guest bob young Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Pastor Frank wrote: > "Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message > news:l597u2lni8032lkjd0nvt0im7q0k0gpfec@4ax.com... > > In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 06:46:29 -0800, "rbwinn" > > <rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that: > >> > >> What is there to argue about? We > >>have freedom of religion here in the United States. You are free to > >>be an atheist if that is what you want to be. You decided to try some > >>profanity on me. > > > > No, since there's no such thing. And I told you what it means > > to argue style-over-substance, which is what you did. > > Don aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > > > Typical atheists to always know what there isn't, but being clueless as > to what there is. Does that statement not strike you as being painfully banal? > So now we are told thet there "is no such thing" as > profanity, and according to atheists dictionaries and Bibles are lying, for > only atheists know the truth, ...only privately so however, for they can't > seem to evidence this truth. Atheists are not 'all knowing', but they do use their common sense and logic - THAT is the big difference > > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" > > > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Semper Lib Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:1172395449.982024.88750@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com... On 25 Feb., 03:12, "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.