Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message news:55le0hF25q8crU1@mid.individual.net... > "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:5veIh.2541$nV1.636@bignews6.bellsouth.net... >> >> A few years ago I subscribed to newsgroups, but quickly became >> disenchanted and left the groups. I was hoping this "Christian" >> newsgroup would be different. > > What christian newsgroup is that. There are several newsgroups listed in > the header. > "Different" in which way? Christians are those who follow Christ, and Christ talked to sinners and publicans. He even talked to those who hated Him enough to kill Him. Had Christ talked only to His disciples, as so many Christians only want to talk to their church choir and minister, Christ could have avoided crucifixion. This public forum therefore is not for the faint, nor those who want to play it safe. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 "Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message news:8eudnfZiBpoXGWjYnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com... > Pastor Frank wrote: >> "Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:nju8v21tm5bdm6432gpfhdupdlfsfmp0tc@4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:10:30 +0800, "Pastor Frank" >>> <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote: >>>> "Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message >>>> news:y5edna5NbpcM93PYnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com... >>>>> Mettas Mother wrote: >>>>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! >>>>> No evidence of absence is ever required in any case. The burden of >>>>> proof >>>>> cannot be shifted to the non-believers. >>>>> The only reasonable default presumption in any case like this is the >>>>> null, >>>>> 'NO ET,' 'NO GOD' no whatever. >>>>> http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm >>>>> http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm >>>>> >>>> You won't meet up with any argument from us theists. We all agree >>>> with >>>> you, that the god(s) of atheist definition are guaranteed not to exist. >>>> But >>>> then there are millions who have their very own existing concrete >>>> god(s) >>>> they pray to and make offerings to. And others have abstract gods: I.e. >>>> our >>>> Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) whom we serve, ...to the death >>>> if >>>> need be. >>> Is that all God is, then, Frank? Love? >>> Gospel Bretts >>> a.a. atheist #2262 >>> Fundy Xian Atheist >>> >> That's what our Christian NT Bible says, and we believe it. But also >> Christ demonstrated His love by laying down His innocent life on our >> behalf and taking it up again. > Oh, he was revived? How is it a sacrifice then if he did not actually die? > Sacrifice entails actually killing an animal. Your religious beliefs don't > make sense, old son. > We believe Jesus actually died and resurrected, and that is why He is our God incarnate. I'm sure you wouldn't want a god who was limited to do only, what Satan allowed Him to do, would you now? Furthermore, if religion were "to make sense" it wouldn't require belief and faith, it would be enough to merely acknowledge fact, and religion would be reduced to knowing those facts. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 "Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message news:8eudnfBiBpqSG2jYnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com... > JessHC wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Mar 11, 5:42?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:15:22 -0700, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> >>>> wrote: > >>>>> That isn't what characterizes atheism, moron, "Atheism is >>>>> characterized >>>>> by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." >>>>> --http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html >>>>> Even you should be able to grasp that. >>>> He does grasp it. >>>> He is desperately thrashing about for attention. >>> >>> Well, what I do is study atheists because I have nothing better to >>> do. The problem with your idea is that attention from an atheist is >>> always an adverse incident. >> >> So why are you here, begging for attention from atheists? > > Obviously he is a masochist, someone who obtains pleasure from being > spanked. > wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn > Why are you trying so hard to be a trashing and flaming buffoon in our pristine and hallowed Christian NGs? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 "Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message news:2007031218175575249-thecroft@macunlimitednet... > On 2007-03-12 14:35:11 +0000, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> said: >> Pastor Frank wrote: >>> >>> Jesus Christ evidenced God by giving His life on the cross of Calvary >>> for us sinners and not for His own benefit, nor for anyone virtuous or >>> perfect, nor famous or deserving. >> >> That's nice, except it's only a story; it didn't really happen. > > You were there? You have evidence to back that assertion? > It's atheists doctrine, that only theists need to evidence their assertions. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message news:1173724270.502360.174380@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > rbwinn wrote: >> On Mar 12, 9:39?am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote: >> > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism >> > > On Mar 12, 6:39?am, Elroy Willis wrote: >> > >> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism >> > >>> Our Father Which art in Heaven. >> > >> Where's heaven? Outer space? >> > > Where there is no sin. >> > >> > So it can't possibly be on Earth, since sin is so rampant here, right? >> > >> Earth will become part of the kingdom of heaven after Jesus Christ >> returns and the earth is cleansed of wickedness. > > And there will be sugar plum fairies and cotton candy clouds. > Not for you Jess. Have you got your asbestos suit ready yet? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message news:1173724351.280332.283470@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... > rbwinn wrote: >> On Mar 12, 7:32?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: >> > rbwinn wrote: >> > > On Mar 12, 4:14?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > > How do you know that that was not a lie? >> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message >> > > >news:1173667520.132051.18860@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... >> > > > >On Mar 11, 6:49?pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth> >> > > > >?wrote: > >> > > > > > ===>The fictional character "Jesus" is called "Christ", >> > > > > > ?but he never said he was "Jehovah". -- L. >> > > > > Actually he did. >> > > > > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text - > >> > > If Jesus Christ had ever lied, he would not have been able to atone >> > > for the sins of mankind. >> > >> > Matthew 16:28 >> > Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not >> > taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. >> >> Thank you, Jess. Wonderful to see you are studying the scriptures. > > Yes, isn't it? It allows me to point out where Jesus was lying. > I have seen Christ "coming into His Kingdom", and so have all born-again Christians. That makes you a false accuser, Jess. Have you got your fire-proof suit ready yet? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message news:1173724521.374854.165270@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > rbwinn wrote: >> On Mar 12, 9:31?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: >> > rbwinn wrote: >> > > You asked. ?Sorry you did not like the answer. >> > >> > It's not a matter of likes and dislikes, mooooron, we just do not >> > believe you. The low quality of your scholarship and erudition speaks >> > for itself. Plus you got caught in a lie, that JessHC is opposed to >> > freedom of speech. Standing in opposition to the radical religious >> > right >> > trying to make their religious beliefs the law of the land is not >> > opposition to freedom of speech, it is merely the defense of the >> > constitutional principle of separation of church and state.- Hide >> > quoted text - >> > >> People who have religious beliefs are not excluded by the Constitution >> from participation in the government. If you do not like someone who >> has religious beliefs, why don't you vote for some atheists? > > We do. Unfortunately, most people are as deluded as you. > You consider yourself the only bright spot in this dismal scene, don't you? You are bright because of the flames, Jess. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message news:1173724589.267095.53060@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > rbwinn wrote: >> On Mar 12, 9:03?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > How do you know that the sins were atoned? >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message >> > news:1173707487.274055.278030@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > >If Jesus Christ had ever lied, he would not have been able to atone >> > >for the sins of mankind. >> > >Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text - >> > >> There would be no way anyone who sinned could be saved if the >> atonement had not happened. > > Circular reasoning. You lose again. > You don't REALLY think you are winning, are you Jess? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Sippuuden Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 rbwinn wrote: > On Mar 13, 6:52�pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Mar 13, 3:56?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Mar 13, 11:22?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: >>>>>> Richo wrote: >>>>>>> The vast majority of things humans believe they do so without "proof" >>>>>>> - but that doesnt make the beliefs foolish or unreasonable. >>>>>> That may be the doctrine in your religion, but not everyone agrees with >>>>>> you. For instance: >>>>>> "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without >>>>>> evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics >>>>> Evidence does not work on atheists. ? >>>> ?> >>>> I am atheist and evidence works on me. So what you say is false, Bob. >>>> ?>> They only acknowledge evidence >>>>> which they believe supports their philosophy. >>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>> Don't be stupid, Bob. That's the theist MO. >>> I am not stupid. � >> Then quit acting stupid. That's the theist MO. Atheism is not a >> philosophy looking for something to support it, atheism is just an >> absence of theism, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in >> the existence of gods." --http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html >> >> Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods >> to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the >> existence of gods: >> >> "That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary >> doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, >> without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined >> the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, >> "Agnosticism and Christianity"http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html >> >> "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without >> evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics- Hide quoted text - >> > Well, if you want to try to prove that nothing exists, go ahead and > try. ?What?? Where did I assert, "Nothing exists"??? Are you imagining things? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 On 13 Mar 2007 18:25:56 -0700, in alt.atheism "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in <1173835556.418159.261710@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>: >On Mar 13, 6:10?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On 13 Mar 2007 17:51:48 -0700, in alt.atheism >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> <1173833508.636582.7...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Mar 13, 4:35?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> On 12 Mar 2007 21:15:38 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in >> >> <1173759337.896438.204...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >On Mar 12, 5:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:54:56 +0800, in alt.atheism >> >> >> "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> >> >> <et4p7h$n4...@registered.motzarella.org>: >> >> >> >> >It is not that I do not want to accept, but like to see jesus being crucified. so can you make the >> >> >> >necessary arrangements. >> >> >> >> >"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >news:1173737798.798364.161660@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> On Mar 12, 2:11?pm, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > So is anyone saved by the atonement? >> >> >> >> >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >news:1173723597.337466.251030@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > > There would be no way anyone who sinned could be saved if the >> >> >> >> > > atonement had not happened. >> >> >> >> > > Robert B. Winn >> >> >> >> > > On Mar 12, 9:03?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > How do you know that the sins were atoned?- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> >> Those who accept the atonement of Christ will be saved. >> >> theists say >> >> >> >> they will not accept the atonement of Christ. >> >> >> >> Do they? I certainly don't say that. It would be interesting for you to >> >> >> present a statement from an atheist showing that the atheist would >> >> >> reject such a thing. >> >> >> >> I don't believe the claims of people about gods because the claims are >> >> >> unsupported by evidence.- >> >> >> >Well, how do you accept the atonement of Christ without admitting he >> >> >exists? >> >> >> The claim that there is such an atonement is one of the claims about >> >> gods that is unsupported by the evidence.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >Well, so you reject the atonement of Christ, just as I said in the >> >beginning. >> >> No, I do not reject it. I merely have no reason to think it exists.- Hide quoted text - >> >Why do you have no reason to think it exists? You think God did not >do his part? There is no evidence about any gods or about Jesus as the divine. Quote
Guest jesshc Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Pastor Frank wrote: > "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message > news:1173724521.374854.165270@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Mar 12, 9:31?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> You asked. ?Sorry you did not like the answer. >>>> It's not a matter of likes and dislikes, mooooron, we just do not >>>> believe you. The low quality of your scholarship and erudition speaks >>>> for itself. Plus you got caught in a lie, that JessHC is opposed to >>>> freedom of speech. Standing in opposition to the radical religious >>>> right >>>> trying to make their religious beliefs the law of the land is not >>>> opposition to freedom of speech, it is merely the defense of the >>>> constitutional principle of separation of church and state.- Hide >>>> quoted text - >>>> >>> People who have religious beliefs are not excluded by the Constitution >>> from participation in the government. If you do not like someone who >>> has religious beliefs, why don't you vote for some atheists? >> We do. Unfortunately, most people are as deluded as you. >> > You consider yourself the only bright spot in this dismal scene, don't > you? Nope. > You are bright because of the flames, Jess. And you have your eyes closed. Quote
Guest jesshc Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Pastor Frank wrote: > "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message > news:1173710819.345768.186260@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Mar 11, 5:42?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:15:22 -0700, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> That isn't what characterizes atheism, moron, "Atheism is >>>>> characterized >>>>> by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." >>>>> --http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html >>>>> Even you should be able to grasp that. >>>> He does grasp it. >>>> He is desperately thrashing about for attention. >>>> >>> Well, what I do is study atheists because I have nothing better to >>> do. The problem with your idea is that attention from an atheist is >>> always an adverse incident. >> So why are you here, begging for attention from atheists? >> > Christ commissioned us to do so. See below. You mean when he said "Shake the dust from your feet as a testimony against them"? > Who commissioned you to proselytize atheism in our pristine and hallowed Christian NGs? You did, liar, when you crossposted your dishonest crap into alt.atheism. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 On Mar 14, 6:10?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > What were written, were they written correctly? Well, what do you think was written incorrectly? Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 On Mar 14, 6:15�am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > But Jesus could have possibly existed! Quote
Guest jesshc Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Pastor Frank wrote: > "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message > news:1173274048.270648.39520@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Mar 6, 10:53?pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: >>>> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Why don't you explain it to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> earth? >>>>>> That's so adorable! You think some guy who lived 2000 years ago (if >>>>>> he >>>>>> existed at all) is going to "return to judge the earth"? It's just >>>>>> too >>>>>> cute for words! >>>>>> No, wait... You're an ADULT, right? Hmmm, scratch what I said, it's >>>>>> not >>>>>> cute at all, it's just ridiculous. >>>>> Well, Scot, I would not be the one to discuss your idea with. ?Why >>>>> don't you take an opportunity to discuss it with Jesus Christ after >>>>> he >>>>> returns to judge the earth? >>>> Like I said, a grown man saying these things: ridiculous. >>>> >>>> Here's a tip, Skippy. For a threat to work, the person at whom the >>>> threat is directed has to believe the threat is real. Otherwise, you >>>> come across like a four year old child trying to scare his parents by >>>> claiming a monster is in the closet. >>>> >>>> Does any of this make sense to you? >>> Nothing any atheist has ever said to me made any sense. You are no >>> exception. >> That explains so much about you. >> > Atheists don't make any sense, for the god they waste their life > lambasting, is some comic book character and not originated by any Theist > scripture. Lying is still a sin, Frank. Quote
Guest jesshc Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 rbwinn wrote: > On Mar 10, 5:55�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Mar 9, 5:24?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >>>> On 9 Mar 2007 11:12:49 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> ? - Refer: <1173467568.901846.277...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> >>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>> On Mar 8, 8:06?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 12:09?am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:53:34 -0800, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (ScottRichter) wrote: >>>>>>>>> ? - Refer: <1hukpsp.1pxrmuu1t335k3N%scottrichter...@yahoo.com> >>>>>>>>>> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you explain it to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the >>>>>>>>>>>>> earth? >>>>>>>>>>>> That's so adorable! You think some guy who lived 2000 years ago (if he >>>>>>>>>>>> existed at all) is going to "return to judge the earth"? It's just too >>>>>>>>>>>> cute for words! >>>>>>>>>>>> No, wait... You're an ADULT, right? Hmmm, scratch what I said, it's not >>>>>>>>>>>> cute at all, it's just ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>> Well, Scot, I would not be the one to discuss your idea with. ?Why >>>>>>>>>>> don't you take an opportunity to discuss it with Jesus Christ after he >>>>>>>>>>> returns to judge the earth? >>>>>>>>>> Like I said, a grown man saying these things: ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>> Here's a tip, Skippy. For a threat to work, the person at whom the >>>>>>>>>> threat is directed has to believe the threat is real. Otherwise, you >>>>>>>>>> come across like a four year old child trying to scare his parents by >>>>>>>>>> claiming a monster is in the closet. >>>>>>>>>> Does any of this make sense to you? >>>>>>>>> Too many big words. >>>>>>>>> Too much threatening reality. >>>>>>>>> Too much sanity for pathetic little Bobby. >>>>>>>> I have never seen an atheist say anything that had much meaning. >>>>>>> That's the sad result of your inability to interact with reality. >>>>>>>> Now, Isaiah was a person who could make meaningful statements. >>>>>>> As is this statement.- >>>>>> Well, compare your statement with one from Isaiah. >>>>> Irrelevant. >>>> Perhaps not. >>>> I partially quote from a scholarly analysis of the great Qumran Isaiah >>>> Scroll: >>>> "An example of other frequently found editorial corrections: A good >>>> example of an unmarked redundancy is in Isaiah 38:19 and 20. In verse >>>> 20, (line 12) after the second word "le-hoshiy'eniy" ?(to save me) the >>>> whole of verse 19 is repeated as well as the first two words of verse >>>> 20. There is nothing to indicate the repetition which is an obvious >>>> error. But an omission in the next two verses is corrected in the >>>> margin. The last word of verse 21 and the first 6 words of 22 were >>>> omitted and an editor with a different hand and stroke and spelling >>>> (kiy without the aleph) entered the omitted words in the left margin >>>> vertically. There is no way to account for a careful editor spotting >>>> the omitted words and not noting the redundancy which he could not >>>> have avoided seeing." >>>> As one can plainly see, Robby the Robot's Isaiah is chock full of >>>> errors, corrections and mistakes. >>>> (But I am referring to an original 1st century scroll, in Hebrew and >>>> Aramaic. Obviously inferior to Bobbie's little "illustrated book of >>>> bible stories for boys and girls" that he uses when he is lucid enough >>>> to be able to read.) >>> The Nelson version of the Bible printed one particular year does the >>> same thing. �One verse is repeated. �That did not affect the versions >>> of the Bible which only printed the verse once. �An atheist would >>> claim that this printing error is proof that the Bible is untrue. >> No, an atheist would claim that this printing error is proof that the >> bible isn't the inerrant word of any deity, since by containing an >> error, it's errant. �Atheists recognize there are actually true things >> in the bible, just like there are true things in The Wizard of Oz, or >> Stephen Kings' books.- Hide quoted text - >> > The Bible is subject to all kinds of error, sometimes intentional and > sometimes accidental. Notwithstanding that all of these errors can > occur, we can compare the text of Isaiah that we have in the King > James version of the Bible with the text of the Dead Sea scroll > version and see that there is no significant difference. Pointing out > that a scribe repeated a verse in the Dead Sea Scroll version shows > how desperate atheists are to find a difference. What was the Essene > scribe supposed to do, throw away the entire scroll because he had > made an error? What prevented god from allowing the error into what's supposed to be his divinely inspired word? Are the errors divinely inspired, too? Quote
Guest jesshc Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Pastor Frank wrote: > "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message > news:1173273176.499928.288000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com... >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Mar 7, 12:32?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: >>>> Mettas Mother wrote: >>>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! >>>> ?> >>>> No evidence of absence is ever required in any case. The burden of >>>> proof >>>> cannot be shifted to the non-believers. >>>> >>>> The only reasonable default presumption in any case like this is the >>>> null, 'NO ET,' 'NO GOD' no whatever. >>>> >>>> http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm >>>> >>>> http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm >>> Have you considered this verse from Isaiah? >>> Isaiah 4:6 And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the >>> daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge , and for a covert >>> from storm , and from rain. >> Please provide a rational, legitimate reason for any atheist to >> consider any quote from your book of mythology as anything other than >> part of your mythology. >> > We believe someone, i.e. the Biblical authors, much like you believe > others telling you, that man went to the moon. Or did you check that the > whole thing wasn't just a politically inspired fake to show up the Russian > Communists, and found the claim to be justified? I'm sorry, did you not understand the request? Quote
Guest jesshc Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Pastor Frank wrote: > "Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message > news:y5edna5NbpcM93PYnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com... >> Mettas Mother wrote: >>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! >> No evidence of absence is ever required in any case. The burden of proof >> cannot be shifted to the non-believers. >> The only reasonable default presumption in any case like this is the null, >> 'NO ET,' 'NO GOD' no whatever. >> http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm >> http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm >> > Yes. The usual atheist nonsense. There are innumerable existing gods, > for a god is anything or anyone being called a god. Much like atheists > insist, that anyone calling himself a Christian, is one. > The absent god is only the one of atheist definition, for they define > the word to mean some comic book character. LOL You have yet to explain why any atheist would waste time trying to define your deities for you. Quote
Guest jesshc Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Pastor Frank wrote: > "Sippuuden" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message > news:y5edna5NbpcM93PYnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com... >> Mettas Mother wrote: >>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! >> No evidence of absence is ever required in any case. The burden of proof >> cannot be shifted to the non-believers. >> The only reasonable default presumption in any case like this is the null, >> 'NO ET,' 'NO GOD' no whatever. >> http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm >> http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm >> > You won't meet up with any argument from us theists. We all agree with > you, that the god(s) of atheist definition are guaranteed not to exist. But > then there are millions who have their very own existing concrete god(s) > they pray to and make offerings to. And others have abstract gods: I.e. our > Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) whom we serve, ...to the death if > need be. You serve love, do you? On a platter? Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 On Mar 14, 6:39?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > In order to solve a problem we must first recognize that there is a problem > In order to reject Christ , there must first be a Christ! > Atonement of Christ was/is only possible if there was/is a Christ! > So was/is there Christ? > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:1173833508.636582.7480@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > Well, so you reject the atonement of Christ, just as I said in the > > beginning. > > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text - > I could send you a copy of the Bible. You could read it and decide for yourself. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest jesshc Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Pastor Frank wrote: > "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message > news:1173273021.538983.179950@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com... >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Mar 7, 12:10?am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >>>> On 6 Mar 2007 14:52:00 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> ? - Refer: <1173221520.689544.138...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> >>>>> Have you considered you're just making an ass of yourself? >>>> That appears to be an avowed goal of his. >>>> >>> Now why would an atheist be concerned about what my goals are? >> Because you keep defecating in alt.atheism. >> >>> Do atheists concern themselves with the goals of all people? >> No, just the goals of people trying to impose their religious beliefs >> on everyone. >> > Tell us about that "imposition"? But I'm not holding my breath till you > do, for it's pretty certain, that when it comes down it, you object to > being told to keep your pants up in public. LOL What's written on your money, Frank? What words are in your pledge? Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 On Mar 14, 6:43�am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Why did you ask that? Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 On Mar 14, 6:51?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Mar 13, 12:10?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 7:33?am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote: > > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism > > > > > > > Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote: > > > > > >> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism > > > > > >>> Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote: > > > > > >>>> Jesus is gonna kill people? > > > > > >>> Malachi 4:1 ?or, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven: > > > > > >>> and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble, > > > > > >>> and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, > > > > > >>> that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. > > > > > >> So Jesus is gonna burn up all the bad people? > > > > > > The bad people are all going to burn up. > > > > > > What will Jesus be doing at that time? ?Stoking the fires? > > > > > Why don't you take it up with him? > > > > Explain how one can do that with an imaginary character.- Hide quoted text - > > > Well, if you believe he is imaginary, why did you ask if he was > > stoking fires? > > Learn to read.- Hide quoted text - > Well, here is what I read: What will Jesus be doing at that time? Stoking the fires? Now go ahead an show me what you think I misread. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 On Mar 14, 6:52�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Mar 13, 12:10?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 8:03?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 12, 4:59?pm, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Then who lied? > > > > > > > The people who accuse Jesus Christ of lying lied. > > > > > > Really. ?So who is still alive that was there listening to Jesus when > > > > > he said "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which > > > > > shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his > > > > > kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)? > > > > > John 21:20 ?Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus > > > > loved following: which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, > > > > Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? > > > > 21 ?Peter seeing him saith unto Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man > > > > do? > > > > 22 ?Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is > > > > that to thee? ?follow thou me. > > > > So your response is to dodge the question, because you can't admit > > > Jesus lied.- Hide quoted text - > > > Jesus Christ did not lie. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 On Mar 14, 7:04?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Mar 13, 4:35?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On 12 Mar 2007 21:15:38 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in > > > <1173759337.896438.204...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: > > > > >On Mar 12, 5:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:54:56 +0800, in alt.atheism > > > >> "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > > >> <et4p7h$n4...@registered.motzarella.org>: > > > > >> >It is not that I do not want to accept, but like to see jesus being crucified. so can you make the > > > >> >necessary arrangements. > > > > >> >"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > > >> >news:1173737798.798364.161660@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> On Mar 12, 2:11?pm, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > So is anyone saved by the atonement? > > > > >> >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > > > >> >> >news:1173723597.337466.251030@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> >> > > There would be no way anyone who sinned could be saved if the > > > >> >> > > atonement had not happened. > > > >> >> > > Robert B. Winn > > > >> >> > > On Mar 12, 9:03?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > How do you know that the sins were atoned?- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> >> Those who accept the atonement of Christ will be saved. theists say > > > >> >> they will not accept the atonement of Christ. > > > > >> Do they? I certainly don't say that. It would be interesting for you to > > > >> present a statement from an atheist showing that the atheist would > > > >> reject such a thing. > > > > >> I don't believe the claims of people about gods because the claims are > > > >> unsupported by evidence.- > > > > >Well, how do you accept the atonement of Christ without admitting he exists? > > > > The claim that there is such an atonement is one of the claims about > > > gods that is unsupported by the evidence.- Hide quoted text - > > > Well, so you reject the atonement of Christ, just as I said in the beginning. > > If by "atonement of christ" you mean "unsupported assertion," then yes.- Hide quoted text - > Well, obviously words in the English language have no meaning to you. Why don't you quote some Latin phrases? I am sure that would make you feel better. Robert B. Winn 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.