Guest Michael Gray Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 04:39:18 GMT, "Semper Lib Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 "Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:h8d8u2t8aqq1v5v40dbtbnoimoflm9cjdn@4ax.com... > > That's because I don't believe in god. The upshot is that > those who believe in god are childish. > Obviously, for you makes sure that gods of your definition don't exist. But the truth is, there is no shortage of existing gods, both concrete and abstract, and maintaining that there ain't no god(s), is just "childish" bleating. -- 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, 7:53�pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On 28 Feb 2007 16:29:23 -0800, "rbwinn" > <rbwi...@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. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 On Feb 28, 7:54�pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On 28 Feb 2007 16:27:16 -0800, "rbwinn" > <rbwi...@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. > > >> >> >> >> >> Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 On Feb 28, 8:23?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On 28 Feb 2007 18:41:28 -0800, in alt.atheism > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > <1172716888.888174.142...@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.- Hide quoted text - > Oh, I guess you have never read the Bible. Would you like me to send you a copy? Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 On Feb 28, 8:25�pm, Paul Duca <p.d...@comcast.net> wrote: > in article 1172662369.154545.34...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com, rbwinn at > rbwi...@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 rbwinn Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 On Feb 28, 9:57�pm, "Semper Lib�r" <nopolicesta...@freedom4all.org> wrote: > "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > > news:1172395449.982024.88750@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com... > On 25 Feb., 03:12, "Semper Lib Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:2ho9u25n0bfth0pee9taf3gkua6vn3tev2@4ax.com... > On 26 Feb 2007 22:20:17 -0800, in alt.atheism > "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in >> >>In any event, if you think I am mocking Jesus, why don't you take your >>complaint to him when he returns to judge the earth? > > Because there is no evidence that Jesus will ever return and there is a > great deal of evidence that people are harmed by the teachings of those > who claim to be the followers of Jesus. > There you go again making broad accusations without presenting a shred of evidence. Why would we need to present evidence of the existence of our God, who btw is love (1 John 4:8,16) to you, if you don't even have the courtesy to support your serious accusations of wrong-doing with some evidence? We have no problem seeing and experiencing the extraordinary love our God has for us, while we were, and still are sinners deserving condemnation, and if you would only open your eyes and take your thumbs out of your ears, you could experience His love too. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:7ko9u2p6hkl4bekmm159c63f60sdoott6q@4ax.com... > On 26 Feb 2007 21:33:11 -0800, in alt.atheism > "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in > <1172554391.178023.233210@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>: >> >>Do whatever you decide to do. The United States is a free country. >>What you do means nothing to me. > > Yes, you know you are a liar, but you are too craven to admit it. > ROFL Found yourself another liar? That should tell you something. Either the world is just packed with liars, you being one of the few honest people left, or you are exhibiting advanced symptoms of atheists cynicism and paranoia. Ask Jesus into your life, for only He can set you free. See below Pastor Frank Jesus in Jn:8:36: If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 "Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message news:C20A7B02.8078%p.duca@comcast.net... > > I told you, I will...at the very least, I am NEVER going to be > alongside someone like you, on my knees sucking up to Him and begging for > His crumbs. > Is that what you do to those you love? Apparently you have no compunction to suck up to the devil "begging for his crumbs", that is as long as his crumbs involve a bare butt or two. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest stumper Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Pastor Frank wrote: > "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!!!!! > Just like suicide bombers in Iraq? -- ~Stumper Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 On 1 Mar 2007 03:19:44 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1172747984.468831.264370@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: >On Feb 28, 8:23?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On 28 Feb 2007 18:41:28 -0800, in alt.atheism >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> <1172716888.888174.142...@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.- Hide quoted text - >> >Oh, I guess you have never read the Bible. Would you like me to send >you a copy? Apparently you are a bot of very little memory. If you had any memory at all, you would know that you had already tried this lie on me and that I pointed out that I own a number of Bibles and have read it through. You would also remember that the Bible does not qualify as evidence in support of the claim that gods exist. It is no more evidence than any of the other religious and religiously-inspired books. Many people, some just for kicks, have written religious texts. None are supported by any evidence. -- "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 March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 22:44:09 +0800, in alt.atheism "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in <45e7076a$0$16281$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>: >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >news:2ho9u25n0bfth0pee9taf3gkua6vn3tev2@4ax.com... >> On 26 Feb 2007 22:20:17 -0800, in alt.atheism >> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in >>> >>>In any event, if you think I am mocking Jesus, why don't you take your >>>complaint to him when he returns to judge the earth? >> >> Because there is no evidence that Jesus will ever return and there is a >> great deal of evidence that people are harmed by the teachings of those >> who claim to be the followers of Jesus. >> > There you go again making broad accusations without presenting a shred >of evidence. Are you trying to deny that there have been people who claim to be followers of Jesus but have caused serious harm in the world with their evil? >Why would we need to present evidence of the existence of our >God, who btw is love (1 John 4:8,16) to you, if you don't even have the >courtesy to support your serious accusations of wrong-doing with some >evidence? You have no evidence of any gods. Your simplistic attempt to dodge the issue by trying to equate God and love, is silly and you have already been called on it by others. > We have no problem seeing and experiencing the extraordinary love our >God has for us, while we were, and still are sinners deserving condemnation, >and if you would only open your eyes and take your thumbs out of your ears, >you could experience His love too. You have no evidence that any gods exist. -- "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 Pastor Frank Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 "jl" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1172697884.697171.86100@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > 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. > So tell us your reasons why you prefer to believe one kind of evidence but not another. Or do atheists merely prefer to believe what they prefer to be true? Ask Jesus into your heart and you will know joy unspeakable. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 On Mar 1, 4:38�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On 1 Mar 2007 03:19:44 -0800, in alt.atheism > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > <1172747984.468831.264...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > > >On Feb 28, 8:23?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On 28 Feb 2007 18:41:28 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > >> <1172716888.888174.142...@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.- Hide quoted text - > > >Oh, I guess you have never read the Bible. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 On 1 Mar 2007 17:50:38 -0800, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1172800238.359704.173240@31g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>: >On Mar 1, 4:38?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On 1 Mar 2007 03:19:44 -0800, in alt.atheism >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> <1172747984.468831.264...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 28, 8:23?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> On 28 Feb 2007 18:41:28 -0800, in alt.atheism >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> >> <1172716888.888174.142...@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.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >Oh, I guess you have never read the Bible. �ould you like me to send >> >you a copy? >> >> Apparently you are a bot of very little memory. If you had any memory at >> all, you would know that you had already tried this lie on me and that I >> pointed out that I own a number of Bibles and have read it through. You >> would also remember that the Bible does not qualify as evidence in >> support of the claim that gods exist. It is no more evidence than any of >> the other religious and religiously-inspired books. Many people, some >> just for kicks, have written religious texts. None are supported by any >> evidence. >> >Well, if you are going to go around saying that the Bible does not >exist, it would be your problem, not mine. But, of course, you know that I am not going around saying that the Bible does not exist. That is a lie you are telling. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 In alt.atheism On 1 Mar 2007 03:17:09 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that: >On Feb 28, 7:53?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> In alt.atheism On 28 Feb 2007 16:29:23 -0800, "rbwinn" >> <rbwi...@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: >> >> >> >> >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". >Well, Baalam was the one following Satan No, the angel of the lord was a satan. Read the text, Bobby. You'll see that I'm correct. Or don't, and live in ignorance. Your choice. 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 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 In alt.atheism On 1 Mar 2007 03:18:33 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that: >On Feb 28, 7:54?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> In alt.atheism On 28 Feb 2007 16:27:16 -0800, "rbwinn" >> <rbwi...@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: >> >> >> >> �ow, 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 >So now you are saying that you did not say that profanity does not >exist, Don? Are you saying that you're not lying when you say that atheists say that the bible doesn't exist? 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 Paul Ransom Erickson Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:22:30 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 03:29:28 -0600, Paul Ransom Erickson ><prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote: > - Refer: <spiau29seoku2bqvupnle67cs8haaqcf0h@4ax.com> >>On 19 Feb 2007 03:02:46 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote: >> >>>On Feb 18, 10:21?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: >>>> Michael Gray wrote: >>>> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:33:04 -0500, Darrell Stec >>>> > <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote: >>>> > - Refer: <53rnsvF1u88b...@mid.individual.net> >>>> > >After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 18 February 2007 10:53 >>>> > >am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote: >>>> >>>> > >> So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys, >>>> > >> you claim that he was telling a "yarn"? >>>> > >> Robert B. Winn >>>> >>>> > >I'm unfamiliar with that scripture. �erhaps you might tells us what the >>>> > >phantom bible you got that from says? >>>> >>>> > The Ladybird Illustrated Book of Bible stories for Children. >>>> >>>> Or the other one >>>> >>>> "How to brainwash your children into following The Father" >>>> >>>> We jest, but the truth is these things happen >>>> and it should be declared a criminal offence >>>> >>>So if the government could be persuaded into burning all Bibles, there >>>could be world peace? >>>Robert B. Winn >> >>Who was it that said "those who begin by burning books will end up >>burning men"? > >It was you, just then. Heinrich Heine. And me just then. Quote
Guest Paul Ransom Erickson Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 On 28 Feb 2007 03:37:28 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote: >On Feb 28, 2:29?am, Paul Ransom Erickson <prerick...@houston.rr.com> >wrote: >> On 19 Feb 2007 03:02:46 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 18, 10:21?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: >> >> Michael Gray wrote: >> >> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:33:04 -0500, Darrell Stec >> >> > <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote: >> >> > - Refer: <53rnsvF1u88b...@mid.individual.net> >> >> > >After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 18 February 2007 10:53 >> >> > >am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote: >> >> >> > >> So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys, >> >> > >> you claim that he was telling a "yarn"? >> >> > >> Robert B. Winn >> >> >> > >I'm unfamiliar with that scripture. %rhaps you might tells us what the >> >> > >phantom bible you got that from says? >> >> >> > The Ladybird Illustrated Book of Bible stories for Children. >> >> >> Or the other one >> >> >> "How to brainwash your children into following The Father" >> >> >> We jest, but the truth is these things happen >> >> and it should be declared a criminal offence >> >> >So if the government could be persuaded into burning all Bibles, there >> >could be world peace? >> >Robert B. Winn >> >> Who was it that said "those who begin by burning books will end up >> burning men"?- Hide quoted text - >> >Probably a Bhuddist priest. You atheists are always saying that >Bhuddism is the best religion. >Robert B. Winn It was actually a German playwright named Heinrich Heine. But my point was that I do not approve of burning books. Why on earth would you jump to "Bhuhhist" priest from there? Quote
Guest Paul Ransom Erickson Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:04:48 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >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. Lots of people are convined from a young age that the essence of goodness lies in Christianity, and that any seeming problem with the belief is either a misunderstanding or a mystery. Such people are frightened away from investigating the doubts that arise in their minds, and are therefore unlikely to follow seeming problems to their conclusions. And who on earth really does follow up completely on all the inconsistencies they notice in themselves? Even the greatest of philosophers have trouble with consistency. I do agree with you that all Christians are liars, but I don't think they are unique in that. All atheists are liars too. It only takes the least measure of introspection to know that. We all have inconsistent beliefs and we all fudge it very often. The problem with religion is that it creates structures to help people fudge it. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:07:37 -0600, Paul Ransom Erickson <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote: - Refer: <mvbfu25oj3rnk532ki810j3v5dmtnben92@4ax.com> > >On 28 Feb 2007 03:37:28 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote: > >>On Feb 28, 2:29?am, Paul Ransom Erickson <prerick...@houston.rr.com> >>wrote: >>> On 19 Feb 2007 03:02:46 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >On Feb 18, 10:21?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote: >>> >> Michael Gray wrote: >>> >> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:33:04 -0500, Darrell Stec >>> >> > <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote: >>> >> > - Refer: <53rnsvF1u88b...@mid.individual.net> >>> >> > >After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 18 February 2007 10:53 >>> >> > >am rbwinn perhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote: >>> >>> >> > >> So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys, >>> >> > >> you claim that he was telling a "yarn"? >>> >> > >> Robert B. Winn >>> >>> >> > >I'm unfamiliar with that scripture. %rhaps you might tells us what the >>> >> > >phantom bible you got that from says? >>> >>> >> > The Ladybird Illustrated Book of Bible stories for Children. >>> >>> >> Or the other one >>> >>> >> "How to brainwash your children into following The Father" >>> >>> >> We jest, but the truth is these things happen >>> >> and it should be declared a criminal offence >>> >>> >So if the government could be persuaded into burning all Bibles, there >>> >could be world peace? >>> >Robert B. Winn >>> >>> Who was it that said "those who begin by burning books will end up >>> burning men"?- Hide quoted text - >>> >>Probably a Bhuddist priest. You atheists are always saying that >>Bhuddism is the best religion. >>Robert B. Winn > >It was actually a German playwright named Heinrich Heine. But my >point was that I do not approve of burning books. > >Why on earth would you jump to "Bhuhhist" priest from there? Because Robbie has the intellect of an angry retarded infant. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:41:27 -0600, Paul Ransom Erickson <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote: - Refer: <d7dfu21j71k9kjufn1qo796guqo1of0d17@4ax.com> >On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:04:48 +1030, Michael Gray ><mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >>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. > >Lots of people are convined from a young age that the essence of >goodness lies in Christianity, and that any seeming problem with the >belief is either a misunderstanding or a mystery. > >Such people are frightened away from investigating the doubts that >arise in their minds, and are therefore unlikely to follow seeming >problems to their conclusions. And this is therefore willful ignorance. > And who on earth really does follow up >completely on all the inconsistencies they notice in themselves? Even >the greatest of philosophers have trouble with consistency. > >I do agree with you that all Christians are liars, but I don't think >they are unique in that. All atheists are liars too. A very cogent summary, sir. >It only takes the least measure of introspection to know that. We all >have inconsistent beliefs and we all fudge it very often. > >The problem with religion is that it creates structures to help people >fudge it. But it forces them to do that, even if by willful ignorance, be that through fear, or restricted opportunity, which is my entire point. Atheism does not force people to lie. -- Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 On Mar 2, 1:28�am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:07:37 -0600, Paul Ransom Erickson<prerick...@houston.rr.com> wrote: > > Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote: > > > Well, you are an apostate Christian. That means you are more > > > dishonest than a person who was raised atheist. > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > On the contrary, my dear Winnie, the ex-Christian has turned away from > > dishonesty and embraced truth. He is to be more admired and esteemed > > for having grappled himself up out of the stifling quicksands of > > religion and walked in the verdant and enlightened fields of atheism. > > Well, if you atheists are so happy, why can't you stay away from > trying to discredit religion? Because our world is under assault by religious groups who invoke their superstitions to control what others think and do. Did you miss 9/11? Have you not listened to Pat Robertson and other power mad evangelicals? Have you not watched the creationists trying to take America back to the Dark Ages? Have you not heard the suicide bombers screaming "God is great"? It is increasingly clear that religion is a plague on civilization, so why would we "stay away" from such an important issue? 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.