Guest John Baker Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:48:35 -0500, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >Jason wrote: <PIGGYBACKING> >> >> You failed to answer this question in relation to my scenario: Cut the crap, you pompous windbag. You've failed to answer every question that's been put to you. >> If you was on the jury of the man that 8 witnesses claimed to have heard >> the husband state: "I am going to kill that woman", would you find him >> guilty him guilty? Testimony is not evidence, even in a court of law. It's used in conjuction with physical evidence to help establish guilt or innocence, but it is not evidence in and of itself. So to answer your question, no, I wouldn't find the man guilty on testimony alone. >> >> In relation to your scenario, I would find him not guilty since a dead >> body was not found. > >And there has been "no body found" in the case of god. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <NDyci.167$W9.78@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1406071952230001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <wgici.1412$ma.496@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-1406071218540001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <%_aci.3526$s8.1518@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Martin" <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:1181791042.696607.245920@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >> >> > On Jun 14, 8:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> >> > Even if Jesus himself > >> >> >> > saiys not any word about this in the NT. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Yes, he does. He forgave a prostitute for her sins. He could have > >> >> >> had > >> >> >> her > >> >> >> stoned to death--he did not do it. > >> >> > > >> >> > And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the Christian concept of a loving > >> >> > god! > >> >> > > >> >> > Martin > >> >> > >> >> Actually Jason the story about the prostitute was added to the bible. > >> >> Jesus > >> >> never had such an encounter. > >> > > >> > It was absent from the Alexandrian text but was in other > >> > manuscripts--including in the writings of Augustine. > >> > > >> > I copied the above information from a footnote in my study Bible--the > >> > editor was W.A. Criswell, Ph.D. > >> > >> This story is not part of the original story told by John. You are > >> correct > >> that it is found in some manuscripts but not necessarily in John. I think > >> the fact that it isn't in the best texts we have and that when it is > >> found > >> it is found in various places makes it pretty certain that the story was > >> a > >> later inclusion by the followers of Jesus. Which brings us to the > >> writings > >> of Augustine. While we can get valuable information from the writings of > >> the > >> early church fathers as to the composition of the earliest bible, it must > >> also be remembered that the early church fathers wrote many of the things > >> in > >> the bible to support their point of view. > > > > There are footnotes in study Bibles about those sorts of cases. Several > > months ago, National Geographic published "The Book of Judas". It may have > > been portions of the book of Judas. I heard a television preacher say that > > he found out that the Book of Judas was actually written several hundred > > years after Judas died. Have you read anything about the Book of Judas? I > > have not read it. > > Jason > > Why don't we stick to the point under discussion, was the story of the > prostitute in the original writings of the bible? > I have heard of the gospel of Judas but I haven't read it. I have read the > gospel of Mary and I have the gospel of Thomas in my library. I have already told you what Dr. Criswell has stated about the prostitute story. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <coe5735hper0t715cgkusb7l7i8i7lfb4f@4ax.com>, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:01:05 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >In article <7f50735gqg9n7ifa3ib8ucmhc2t0jd959k@4ax.com>, John Baker > ><nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:48:04 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> > >> >On 12 Jun., 19:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> In article <1181643770.817395.36...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> > On 11 Jun., 21:54, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > > In article <0de0k4-blk....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >> >snip > >> > > >> >> > A person that has been healed is evidence that he was healed. It is > >> >> > not evidence of a god. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which indicated that > >> >> her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened?- > >> > > >> >I would not be able to explain it, and that is not evidence that god > >> >did it. > >> > >> > >> But then, Jason isn't about to provide any evidence either..... > > > >Why bother--several have told me that if I provided physical evidence to > >prove that her leg bone grew two inches, they would still not believe that > >God healed her leg. > > > One step at a time, Jason. First, prove that the event in question > actually happened. A few undoctored before-and-after photos > accompanied by the sworn testimony of at least two qualified medical > professionals that the event did happen as described and is in fact > medically unexplainable will do for that. > > Once that's done to everyone's satisfaction, then we'll discuss > whether or not it's convincing evidence for the existence of a god. > > By the way, Jason ... second-hand "testimony" cribbed from some > Christian web site is not evidence. We discussed this in another post. My conclusion was that since I don't have a video tape showing God coming down from heaven and healing her foot--it would be a waste of time to prove to you that her leg bone was healed. I also discussed the story mentioned in Luke 16:19-31. It was the story of a rich man that died and ended up in the place of torment. He requested permission to return to the earth and warn his brothers about the place of torment so they would not have to go there when he they died. Abraham told the rich man: "If your brothers did not listen to Moses and the prophets, nither will they be persuaded by someone that rose from the dead." My conclusion was that if atheists would not listen to man that returned from the dead, it's only logical they would not listen to Cheryl Prewitt, William Kent or myself. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <IVyci.174$W9.12@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1406071924070001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <5ddu44F33sbabU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > >> > >> snip > >> > > >> > I see it like this--and it's only my opinion--Weather is controlled by > >> > natural weather patterns unless God intervenes such as by causing it to > >> > rain to answer the prayers of Christian farmers. If God had not > >> > intervened--the natural weather patterns would have determined the > >> > weather. > >> > >> So, your god had no problem with Hurricane Katrina? > > > > Natural disasters happen--you could make a list of thousands of natural > > disasters. > > Of course they do. Everything that happens in the world happens naturally > unless man causes it. This includes the rains that come when they are needed > as well as the droughts. The best explanation of the condition of the world > is that no god or gods exist. That is the simplest and most logical > conclusion that can be reached. No 'original' sin', no 'depravity' of man > and no 'savior' needed. This is the world in which we live. We have a difference of opinion on this subject. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <%Iyci.171$W9.140@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1406071927410001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <umc373lsri877gg44m59jqfkek8p2nj2an@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:32:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1406070132130001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article > >> ><DipthotDipthot-CCA16E.18144813062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > >> >655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> > >> ... > >> > >> >> Maybe you'd learn that there is none, and that you were wrong all > >> >> along. > >> >> > >> >> Don't be afraid that learning such a thing could shake your faith in > >> >> your god. I know that wouldn't happen. > >> > > >> >I asked at least two people a question like this: > >> > > >> >If I produced physical evidence that proved that Cheryl's leg bone grew > >> >two inches, would you agree that God healed her? > >> > > >> >Both posters told be that even if I proved that Cheryl's leg bone grew > >> >two > >> >inches, that it would NOT mean that God healed her. > >> > >> Because it doesn't. It does not matter what you believe. Belief is not > >> evidence. All you are doing is making an arrogant assertion and then > >> whining because you are being asked to provide some evidence that God > >> had anything to do with it, but you know you cannot. Stop whining. Stop > >> lying. > > > > Belief is not evidence. In relation to abiogenesis, lots of people have a > > belief that it happened that way. Belief is not evidence. > > Let me ask you a question, Jason. Are you aware of the research that is > being done in the field of abiogenesis? Yes, I visited one site that mentioned some of that research. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <gdf573djt6923jvr4tu751vbafjhpd9dbh@4ax.com>, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:27:40 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >In article <umc373lsri877gg44m59jqfkek8p2nj2an@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:32:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1406070132130001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article > >> ><DipthotDipthot-CCA16E.18144813062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > >> >655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> > >> ... > >> > >> >> Maybe you'd learn that there is none, and that you were wrong all along. > >> >> > >> >> Don't be afraid that learning such a thing could shake your faith in > >> >> your god. I know that wouldn't happen. > >> > > >> >I asked at least two people a question like this: > >> > > >> >If I produced physical evidence that proved that Cheryl's leg bone grew > >> >two inches, would you agree that God healed her? > >> > > >> >Both posters told be that even if I proved that Cheryl's leg bone grew two > >> >inches, that it would NOT mean that God healed her. > >> > >> Because it doesn't. It does not matter what you believe. Belief is not > >> evidence. All you are doing is making an arrogant assertion and then > >> whining because you are being asked to provide some evidence that God > >> had anything to do with it, but you know you cannot. Stop whining. Stop > >> lying. > > > >Belief is not evidence. In relation to abiogenesis, lots of people have a > >belief that it happened that way. Belief is not evidence. > > Actually, Jason, abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact. Whether it > came about through divine intervention or by purely natural means, at > some point in the planet's history, life did arise from non-life. We > both agree on that. We just disagree about how it happened. Excellent point > > > > > > > >> > >> >All of the various questions related to the THE MIRACLE HEALING TESTIMONY > >> >OF WILLIAM A. KENT AND CHERYL PREWITT reminded me of a story in the Bible. > >> >See Luke 16:19-31. The rich man was in the place of torment and requested > >> >permission to return to the earth so that he could warn his brothers about > >> >the place of torment. Abraham said to him, "They have Moses and the > >> >prophets; let them hear them [Moses and the prophets]. The rich man said > >> >to Abraham: "No, father Abraham, but if one went from the dead, they will > >> >repent." And Abraham said to the rich man: "IF THEY HEAR NOT MOSES AND > >> >THE PROPHETS, NEITHER WILL THEY BE PERSUADED, THOUGH ONE ROSE FROM THE > >> >DEAD. > >> > > >> >I hope that you now get the point. If you don't believe the words of Moses > >> >and the Prophets, neither will you listen to William A. Kent, Cheryl > >> >Prewitt or myself. > >> > >> You completely missed the point of the Rich Man and Lazarus. > > > >I > > Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <fHyci.169$W9.109@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1406072012490001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article > > <DipthotDipthot-24078C.18333014062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > > 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > >> In article > >> <Jason-1406070132130001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> > In article > >> > <DipthotDipthot-CCA16E.18144813062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > >> > 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > In article > >> > > <Jason-1306071628360001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > >> > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Bramble, > >> > > > You are leaving out an important issue--several different posters > > told me > >> > > > that even if I produced info. about physical evidence that proved > > her leg > >> > > > bone grew two inches--they still would not be convinced that God > >> > > > healed > >> > > > her. > >> > > > >> > > First off, you are lying again. Skeptics respond to evidence. If > >> > > reliable evidence is produced of some claim, then the claim becomes > >> > > more > >> > > credible as a result... and skeptics will take a step toward being > >> > > convinced of that claim. > >> > > > >> > > Second, you're mixing two things: > >> > > > >> > > 1. Whether the leg actually became longer, and > >> > > 2. Whether some god or gods caused it to happen. (Built into this > >> > > question is, of course, the question of whether any gods exist.) > >> > > > >> > > You believe both. At this point, you have provided reliable evidence > >> > > of > >> > > neither . Your second-hand testimony about a verbal claim given in > >> > > a > >> > > church is not reliable. > >> > > > >> > > Providing evidence for 1 is probably easier than providing evidence > >> > > for > >> > > 2. > >> > > > >> > > Actually, a THIRD question comes up. Even if you show evidence for 1 > >> > > and 2, as hard as that will be, your next assignment would be to show > >> > > evidence for the following claim: > >> > > > >> > > 3. That your Biblical god (named "God") was the god that caused it > >> > > to > >> > > happen. (Built into that claim, of course, is the claim that this > >> > > particular god exists.) > >> > > > >> > > Got that? Can you see the need to walk us through the evidence for > >> > > all > >> > > three claims? > >> > > > >> > > Good luck with that. > >> > > > >> > > > I ask you Bramble > >> > > > >> > > I'm not Bramble, but.... > >> > > > >> > > >--what good would it do for me to spend time visiting > >> > > > websites in search of information about physical evidence? > >> > > > >> > > Well, for one, you might learn something yourself. > >> > > > >> > > > If you were in my shoes, > >> > > > >> > > ...and with your malfunctioning sense of logic? > >> > > > >> > > > would you waste time finding evidence? > >> > > > >> > > What would make finding evidence a waste of time? > >> > > > >> > > Maybe you'd learn that there is none, and that you were wrong all > >> > > along. > >> > > > >> > > Don't be afraid that learning such a thing could shake your faith in > >> > > your god. I know that wouldn't happen. > >> > > >> > I asked at least two people a question like this: > >> > > >> > If I produced physical evidence that proved that Cheryl's leg bone grew > >> > two inches, would you agree that God healed her? > >> > > >> > Both posters told be that even if I proved that Cheryl's leg bone grew > >> > two > >> > inches, that it would NOT mean that God healed her. > >> > >> And that is a sensible, logical response. > >> > >> If you actually paid attention to what I wrote above, you would > >> understand why. If you could see that claim #1 is separate from claim > >> #2, that proving #1 is not the same thing as proving #2, then you > >> would understand that the posters were answering you in a way that is > >> consistent with logic. > >> > >> But seeing as you are deliberately obtuse and dishonest, I cannot > >> imagine you would take the necessary steps to see that. > >> > >> > All of the various questions related to the THE MIRACLE HEALING > >> > TESTIMONY > >> > OF WILLIAM A. KENT AND CHERYL PREWITT reminded me of a story in the > >> > Bible. > >> > >> Irrelevant. > >> > >> > See Luke 16:19-31. > >> > >> Bad start, Bible-Boy. Atheists don't consider the Bible a reliable > >> source of truth. > >> > >> > The rich man was in the place of torment and requested > >> > permission to return to the earth so that he could warn his brothers > >> > about > >> > the place of torment. Abraham said to him, "They have Moses and the > >> > prophets; let them hear them [Moses and the prophets]. The rich man > >> > said > >> > to Abraham: "No, father Abraham, but if one went from the dead, they > >> > will > >> > repent." And Abraham said to the rich man: "IF THEY HEAR NOT MOSES AND > >> > THE PROPHETS, NEITHER WILL THEY BE PERSUADED, THOUGH ONE ROSE FROM THE > >> > DEAD. > >> > >> Extremely irrelevant. > >> > >> > I hope that you now get the point. > >> > >> Yes. The point is that you value the irrelevant and discard the > >> inconvenient. > >> > >> All because you hate science, reason and logic with every fiber of your > >> being. > >> > >> > If you don't believe the words of Moses > >> > and the Prophets, > >> > >> You have to prove that these fellows existed and said anything . > >> > >> Your Bible lacks credibility. > >> > >> YOU lack credibility. > >> > >> Live with it. > >> > >> > neither will you listen to William A. Kent, Cheryl > >> > Prewitt or myself. > >> > >> That much is true. > > > > I am convinced that people only believe things that "fit" their belief > > system. That is the reason I believed Cheryl Prewitt and William A. Kent. > > It also explains the reason that atheists did not believe that God healed > > Cheryl Prewitt and William A. Kent. It also explains why the rich man's > > brothers (mentioned in Luke 16:19-21) would not have listened to the rich > > man--even if he had returned from the dead. Do you agree or disagree? > > Quit attempting to open secondary discussions, Jason, it is dishonest. > Everyone examines anything in light of their worldview. Some of us are able > to see the truth even though we might be looking at something that is > diametrically opposed to our worldview. Others can't see the splinter for > the log. The advocates of creation science are able to do the same thing. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <f4u8s4$5me$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f4rd13$5bc$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f4otjc$j2u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> I was referring to these two steps: > >>>>> > >>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > >>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > > reproduction) > >>>> And leaving out the millions of steps that came before and between. > >>>> > >>>>> Testimony is considered as evidence in court. Someone pointed out that > >>>>> physical evidence (eg gun, bloody knife) is more important than testimony. > >>>>> I agreed with that person that made that statement. > >>>>> > >>>>> Let's say that the neighbors in an apartment building hear a married > >>>>> couple having an argument. They hear the husband say, "I'm going to kill > >>>>> you". The argument ends and the police are not called. The following day, > >>>>> the wife was shot as she was walking home from work. The husband took a > >>>>> shower after he shot his wife and washed his hands with bleach to remove > >>>>> any evidence. There were no witnesses present when the husband shot his > >>>>> wife. The police are not able to find a gun when they search the apartment > >>>>> and all surrounding areas. They arrest the husband and charge him with the > >>>>> murder. All of the neighbors provide testimony at the murder trial. > >>>>> > >>>>> The jury members convict the husband of first degree murder--based upon > >>>>> the testimonies of the people that heard the argument and heard him say, > >>>>> "I'm going to kill you." > >>>> No, they wouldn't. You'd never even find a DA that would even think > >>>> about arresting the guy to begin with, much less prosecuting him, based > >>>> on simply an "I'm going to kill you." Was there even a body? > >>>> > >>>>> Do you now understand that TESTIMONY is evidence--even if there is no > >>>>> physical evidence? > >>>> Testimony is simply evidence that the person says he > >>>> saw/heard/tasted/smelled/felt something but NOT evidence that the > >>>> something actually exists.. But if the neighbor claimed "Yeah, I saw him > >>>> shoot her and bury her body right here" and yet there was no body found > >>>> (or better yet, the wife is actually standing there, alive and well) the > >>>> testimony would likely be ignored. > >>> Let's try again: > >>> A woman's husband is observed by 8 witnesses going inside their apartment > >>> with a gun in his hand and shouting, "I am going to kill that woman." The > >>> witnesses hear a gunshot and see the man running from the building. The > >>> husband had watched over a hundred episodes of CSI and followed his plan: > >>> He was able to get rid of all physical evidence--including the gun. The > >>> only evidence at the murder trial is the testimony of the witnesses. The > >>> body of the woman is found. > >>> > >>> If you was on the jury, would you find him guilty? I would > >> Let's try again: > >> > >> Several people say they overheard a man say "I'm going to kill my wife." > >> No shot is heard, no gun is found, no bullet, no blood, no body, no wife > >> has ever been seen (dead OR alive,) there's no woman's clothes in the > >> apartment, there's a single twin bed, the guy is a flaming gay man. > >> > >> Would you convict him of murder. Yes, YOU would but any sane person > >> wouldn't. > > > > You failed to answer this question in relation to my scenario: > > If you was on the jury of the man that 8 witnesses claimed to have heard > > the husband state: "I am going to kill that woman", would you find him > > guilty him guilty? > > > > In relation to your scenario, I would find him not guilty since a dead > > body was not found. > > And there has been "no body found" in the case of god. You failed to tell me if you would find the man guilty or not guilty. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <f4u916$5me$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1181875577.541042.27200@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> You missed the point: a dead body IS physical evidence. > >> > >> Martin > > > > A leg bone that grows two inches IS physical evidence. > > It's evidence that the leg was healed (assuming that such even happened) > just like the dead body was evidence someone died. NOW work your way > with OTHER evidence from "the leg was healed" to "goddidit." The dead body is evidence and the leg bone that grows two inches is evidence. In both of those cases, the next step is to listen to the testimony of witnesses. In the case of the dead woman, the main witnesses would be the neighbors that heard the murderer state, "I am going to kill that woman." In the case of Cheryl Prewitt, the main witness would be Cheryl Prewitt. I believed the testimony of Cheryl Prewitt. However, as many have pointed out, they did not believe the testimony of Cheryl Prewitt or William Kent. Abraham said that atheists would not even listen to a man that returned from the dead to warn his brothers about the place of torment. Jason Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >My memory is not perfect but I seem to recall seeing her on a television >show claiming that Bill was innocent and that it was a "right wing" >conspiracy". The following day or week, Monica produced the spotted dress. We do not know she was being truthful about what she knew, and when she knew it. Do you have a citation of her saying Bill was innocent? THe conspiracy, she alleged, had been going on since Bill first announced for president. She said that was the "great story here". News that the dress had been produced, did not appear until 6 months after Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" statement. Do you ever wonder if you have your facts straight? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <rpyci.158$W9.85@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1406072142060001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <1181876768.410178.262080@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On 6 15 , 6 15 , J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > > Bramble, > >> > > > You explained your point of view very well. Please tell me whether > >> > > > you > >> > > > think the other members of this newsgroup view abiogenesis as a > >> > > > theory > >> > > > that will be discarded when a better theory is developed? > >> > > >> > > I dont know. Most of the people interested in science know that > >> > > theories can be discarded if there are reasons to do it. Many > >> > > science > >> > > theories are defended > >> > > with passion, in a similar way religious people defend their dogmas. > >> > > But if the persona has a basic knowledge of how science works, then > >> > > he > >> > > knows that any theory is a temporary way to explain something. We > >> > > like to have answers, theories that explain phenomena. Sometimes, we > >> > > have not the slightess idea about a subject, but sometimes it seems > >> > > that we have attractive ideas. We like them and put passion to defend > >> > > them. We are humans, remember? We like to have answers. > >> > > >> > > What you say about fundamentalist churches, I don't like it a little > >> > > bit. You are working a lot to create the party of god. You want to > >> > > reconquer the state, and to found a fundamentalist dictatorship. And > >> > > these are very bad news for me. > >> > > Hitler started with much less that you, and look at the misery and > >> > > death he begot. You are creating the very foundations for the next > >> > > civil war in the US. > >> > > Bramble > >> > > >> > Bramble, > >> > You have nothing to fear from Christians. You have much more to fear > >> > from > >> > the Moslems that want to take over the world. > >> > >> As if Christians don't want to take over the world! > >> > >> Martin > > > > Martin, > > Not until Jesus comes back to establish his kingdom on the earth. In the > > mean time, we have no plans to take over the world. The Muslims do plan to > > take over the world ASAP. They are in the process of taking over the > > Sudan. > > Jason > > When will he come, Jason? The bible says he will come 'soon'( my thanks to > Jerry for this accumulation): We don't know. We are hoping that it will be soon. > > LOL. Depends on what the definition of "is" is? Don't attempt to > > parse words to wiggle out of what the verses mean and furthermore, what > > they mean IN CONTEXT. > > > > Let's try this a little more in depth. If this doesn't work we can > > take each one of these and break them down even more for you. > > > > > > MATTHEW 16 (KJV) > > 16:27 > > For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his > > angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. > > > > 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. > > > > 1 THESSALONIANS 4:15 (NIV) > > According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that WE WHO ARE STILL > > ALIVE, WE WHO ARE LEFT till the coming of the Lord, will certainly > > not precede those who have fallen asleep. > > > > > > Hebrews 10 (NIV) > > 36 > > You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you > > will receive what he has promised. > > > > 37 > > For in just a VERY LITTLE WHILE, "He who is coming will come and WILL > > NOT DELAY. > > > > > > JAMES 5:8 (KJV) > > Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord > > DRAWETH NIGH. > > > > > > I PETER 4:7 (KJV) > > But the END OF ALL THINGS IS AT HAND: be ye therefore sober, and watch > > unto prayer. > > > > > > I JOHN 2:18 (KJV) > > Little children, it is the LAST TIME: and as ye have heard that > > antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we > > know that it is the last time. > > > > > > REVELATION (KJV) > > 1:1 > > The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto > > his servants things which must SHORTLY COME TO PASS; and he sent and > > signified it by his angel unto his servant John: > > > > 1:3 > > Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this > > prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the > > TIME IS AT HAND. > > > > 3:11 > > Behold, I COME QUICKLY: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man > > take thy crown. > > > > 22:7 > > Behold, I COME QUICKLY: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the > > prophecy of this book. > > > > 22:12 > > And, behold, I COME QUICKLY; and my reward is with me, to give every > > man according as his work shall be. > > > > 22:20 > > He which testifieth these things saith, SURELY I COME QUICKLY. Amen. > > Even so, come, Lord Jesus. > > > > ++++++++++++ > > MATTHEW 10:23 (NIV) > > When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I TELL YOU THE > > TRUTH, YOU WILL NOT FINISH GOING THROUGH THE CITIES OF ISRAEL BEFORE > > THE SON OF MAN COMES. > > > > COLOSSIANS 1:23 (NIV) > > if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from > > the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard > > and THAT HAS BEEN PROCLAIMED TO EVERY CREATURE UNDER HEAVEN, and of > > which I, Paul, have become a servant. > > > > Romans 10:18 > > "Their voice has gone out into the all the > > earth, their words to the ends of the world." > > > > Matthew 24:14 (NIV) > > "And this gospel will be preached in the > > whole world as a testimony to all nations, > > AND THEN THE END WILL COME." > > ++++++++++++ > > Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <us95739tvk39qq1p6s9v3l3mn1bh2598mi@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >So if a majority of scientists believed that a huge space ship landed on > >the earth 100 million years ago from the planet Xenita and left behind > >hundreds of animals; thousands of seeds and 1OO people--that would become > >a theory. The evidence would be the same evidence that is discussed in > >Erik Von Dannikan's book--such as Stonehenge, Pyramids and cave drawing of > >ancient astronauts and spaceships. > > It is not enough that a majority of [relevant] scientists believe > something, for it to be a scientific theory. What is believed has to > meet the criteria of "theory". > > The principle criterion of a theory is its predictive accuracy, > followed by its parsimony, then by its internal consistency, then by > its coherence with established theories, then finally by its > fruitfulness. If von Danikan's theory can be used by scientists to > make predictions that are then shown to be accurate, and that cannot > be predicted by a simpler theory, and are internally consistent, and > are coherent with established theories, and can be used to open up new > lines of study, then it will gain wide acceptance by the relevant > scientific community. But you are putting the cart before the horse if > you merely ask whether it is accepted by that community, as your only > criterion. excellent answer Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <Lsyci.160$W9.143@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1406072027180001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <j2t373d3n0dafs1r9ffao27cp6i1hi7qft@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:47:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1406071947270001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <e4c37352rsu9akoeoi2jld8sdh7bpn28n3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:35:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-1406070135150001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <0c41731qbu3l8n3j7rhumqe3vmdvf5rvs7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:22:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> <Jason-1306070022570001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >In article > > <1181708123.776350.23860@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >> >> ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On Jun 13, 11:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> >> >> > In article > >> >> >> >> > <1181695356.967104.238...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> >Martin > >> >> >> > >> >> >> ... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > By the way, Genesis 1 says "El" created the universe and > > mankind but > >> >> >> >> > > Genesis 2 says it was "Yahweh". > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Do you have the verses? El may be one of the many names of > >> >> >> >> > God. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> In fact, Genesis 1 talks about the Elohim, which means "gods", > >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> plural. (e.g. Genesis 6:2, "... the sons of Elohim saw the > >> >> >> >> daughters > >> >> >> >> of men that they were fair; and they took them for wives... ,") > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Martin > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >This is in reference to the intermarriage among the Cainites and > > Sethites. > >> >> >> >The Cainites were sinful, evil people and the Sethites were > >> >> >> >devoted and > >> >> >> >consecrated to God. God became very upset with the Sethites for > >> >> >> >taking > >> >> >> >Cainite women as their wives since God wanted them to only marry > > Sethite > >> >> >> >women. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >I copied most of the above info. from a footnote in my study > >> >> >> >Bible. > >> >> >> >Jason > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> The authors of your study bible note were making it up. They have > >> >> >> no > >> >> >> evidence at all that their claim is correct. > >> >> > > >> >> >Should I believe you or the words of the W.A. Chriswell, Ph.D--the > >> >> >editor > >> >> >of my study Bible or yourself--take a guess on my choice. > >> >> > > >> >> I know that you would be mistaken to believe those who make things up > >> >> like this, but I also know that you have a demonstrated willingness to > >> >> be led astray by those who tell you what you want to hear. Chriswell > >> >> does not have _any_ evidence that "this is in reference to the > >> >> intermarriage among the Cainites and Sethites." > >> >> > >> >> Deal with facts. > >> > > >> >I have no reason to doubt Dr. Chriswell. > >> > > >> That's because you reject the whole concept of evidence. Anyone can tell > >> you any lie as long as they claim God wants it. > >> > >> Still, I wouldn't be surprised if you misrepresented what Chriswell > >> said, you do have a long track record of misunderstanding what others > >> are trying to tell you and misrepresenting these things to others. > > > > Buy or read the Criswell Study Bible and see the evidence for yourself. > > I have many books on the study of the bible. I question each and every one > when I read them. I then form my own conclusion on what I read. You could > use a little objective analysis. I have two study Bibles. One of them did not have a footnote about the scripture in question. I have a Bible dictionary but it was poorly written since many words that I have searched for are not in the dictionary. My 1000 page concordance has been really helpful. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <MDyci.164$W9.42@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1406071947270001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <e4c37352rsu9akoeoi2jld8sdh7bpn28n3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:35:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1406070135150001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <0c41731qbu3l8n3j7rhumqe3vmdvf5rvs7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:22:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-1306070022570001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <1181708123.776350.23860@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> >Martin > >> >> ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Jun 13, 11:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> >> > In article > >> >> >> > <1181695356.967104.238...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > >> >Martin > >> >> > >> >> ... > >> >> > >> >> >> > > By the way, Genesis 1 says "El" created the universe and > >> >> >> > > mankind but > >> >> >> > > Genesis 2 says it was "Yahweh". > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Do you have the verses? El may be one of the many names of God. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> In fact, Genesis 1 talks about the Elohim, which means "gods", in > >> >> >> plural. (e.g. Genesis 6:2, "... the sons of Elohim saw the > >> >> >> daughters > >> >> >> of men that they were fair; and they took them for wives... ,") > >> >> >> > >> >> >> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Martin > >> >> > > >> >> >This is in reference to the intermarriage among the Cainites and > >> >> >Sethites. > >> >> >The Cainites were sinful, evil people and the Sethites were devoted > >> >> >and > >> >> >consecrated to God. God became very upset with the Sethites for > >> >> >taking > >> >> >Cainite women as their wives since God wanted them to only marry > >> >> >Sethite > >> >> >women. > >> >> > > >> >> >I copied most of the above info. from a footnote in my study Bible. > >> >> >Jason > >> >> > > >> >> The authors of your study bible note were making it up. They have no > >> >> evidence at all that their claim is correct. > >> > > >> >Should I believe you or the words of the W.A. Chriswell, Ph.D--the > >> >editor > >> >of my study Bible or yourself--take a guess on my choice. > >> > > >> I know that you would be mistaken to believe those who make things up > >> like this, but I also know that you have a demonstrated willingness to > >> be led astray by those who tell you what you want to hear. Chriswell > >> does not have _any_ evidence that "this is in reference to the > >> intermarriage among the Cainites and Sethites." > >> > >> Deal with facts. > > > > I have no reason to doubt Dr. Chriswell. > > You should approach everything with a skeptical eye. That is what I did for > a living for 35 years. People told me what the circumstances of a particular > situation were and then I asked for evidence. There are many people out > there with credentials as good or better than Chriswell who have different > opinions based on an objective review of the evidence. Yes, you are correct. I took two courses re: theology. We had all sorts of debates related to various doctrines and scriptures. We could have probably found books written by experts to support our arguments. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <ped573tr7gn2ml76ors2aaiq7b5oqmctb6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:19:53 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1406072019540001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <cis373lg4s0abmv6siu17mkkj6vl21sds1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:37:11 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1406071937110001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <l0c373tfbfr5u281gigmjrqo37di297epn@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> ... > >> >> That has absolutely nothing to do with the _fact_ that Jews, Christian, > >> >> Moslems and Bahai all agree that they worship the same God, the God of > >> >> Abraham. I don't know what god you worship. If you worship the God of > >> >> Abraham, you worship the same God that Moslems worship. > >> >> > >> >> Deal with reality sometime. I'm sick of the lies that you tell because > >> >> you indulge in so much wishful thinking and intentional ignorance. > >> > > >> >If you choose to believe it--that is up to you. It's my opinion that Baal > >> >and Allah are false Gods. > >> > >> Your opinion is wrong. I don't care how many opinions you have that are > >> derived from your intentional ignorance. Because you choose to be > >> ignorant and dishonest, you deserve to be chastised. > >> > >> Once again, the fact is that Allah is the Arabic word for God. You > >> basically said in your proud ignorance, that Christian Arabs worship > >> false gods because they call God Allah. You are a fool and a bigot. > >> > >> >I have not conducted any research related to > >> >Bahai. This sentence is from the Quran: > >> > > >> >"Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and sieze them, > >> >beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war)." > >> >(Surah 9:5) > >> > > >> >From Surah 5:33 > >> >"....cutting off of hands and feet..." > >> > > >> The doctrines of Islam may be considered heretical by Christians, but > >> they are not Pagan. Learn the difference and stop worshipping your own > >> ignorance. > > > >The president of Iran made this statement: > >"Israel must be wiped off from the map of the world." > > > So what? That has nothing to do with whether he worships the same God > you do. I believe that Allah is a false God. If you believe they are the same God--that is up to you. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <NDyci.165$W9.27@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1406072019540001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <cis373lg4s0abmv6siu17mkkj6vl21sds1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:37:11 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1406071937110001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <l0c373tfbfr5u281gigmjrqo37di297epn@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> ... > >> >> That has absolutely nothing to do with the _fact_ that Jews, > >> >> Christian, > >> >> Moslems and Bahai all agree that they worship the same God, the God of > >> >> Abraham. I don't know what god you worship. If you worship the God of > >> >> Abraham, you worship the same God that Moslems worship. > >> >> > >> >> Deal with reality sometime. I'm sick of the lies that you tell because > >> >> you indulge in so much wishful thinking and intentional ignorance. > >> > > >> >If you choose to believe it--that is up to you. It's my opinion that > >> >Baal > >> >and Allah are false Gods. > >> > >> Your opinion is wrong. I don't care how many opinions you have that are > >> derived from your intentional ignorance. Because you choose to be > >> ignorant and dishonest, you deserve to be chastised. > >> > >> Once again, the fact is that Allah is the Arabic word for God. You > >> basically said in your proud ignorance, that Christian Arabs worship > >> false gods because they call God Allah. You are a fool and a bigot. > >> > >> >I have not conducted any research related to > >> >Bahai. This sentence is from the Quran: > >> > > >> >"Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and sieze them, > >> >beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war)." > >> >(Surah 9:5) > >> > > >> >From Surah 5:33 > >> >"....cutting off of hands and feet..." > >> > > >> The doctrines of Islam may be considered heretical by Christians, but > >> they are not Pagan. Learn the difference and stop worshipping your own > >> ignorance. > > > > The president of Iran made this statement: > > "Israel must be wiped off from the map of the world." > > So??? Is that supposed to support your argument? If so, it doesn't! Someone was trying to convince me that Allah and Jehovah were the same God. My point was that the Bible clearly states that Israel is the homeland for Jews. The Muslims believe that Israel should be under the control of Muslims. If they had the same God, they would only have one holy book. In this case, they have the Koran and we have the Old Testament and the New Testament. jason The Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <04b573du3nei79luggo9g48c371k1qp5at@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >I found this on the web. Feel free to comment. > > > > > >Intelligent Design position statement > >The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity > >Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines. > >By Michael J. Behe > >Black box: a system whose inner workings are unknown. > > I suggest that you can find detailed criticisms of Behe's work on the > web, too. That is correct. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > > In the case of Cheryl Prewitt, the main witness would be Cheryl Prewitt. I > believed the testimony of Cheryl Prewitt. Why? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <f4ub4v$837$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f4re3n$6nr$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> I heard the story on a Christian radio show. I found this story on the web: > >>> > >>> Vietnam Police Kill Christian Prisoners And Relatives, Investigators Say > >>> Added: May 29th, 2007 2:47 AM > >>> > >>> By Stefan J. Bos, Chief International Correspondent BosNewsLife with > >>> reporting from Vietnam > >>> > >>> HANOI, VIETNAM (BosNewsLife) -- Vietnamese security forces have tortured > >>> and killed at least two Christian Degar Montagnards in Vietnam's Central > >>> Highlands in recent months and allegedly murdered relatives of religious > >>> prisoners, representatives said Monday, May 28. > >> Amazing that this story never appeared on any reputable news site and > >> even searching for the words "Christian Degar Montagnards vietnam killed > >> tortured" in google (leaving out the quotes so it would search for the > >> words individually) only finds 460 pages (by contrast the words > >> "astronaut kidnapped" found 199,000 hits.) > >> > >> Oh, wait, it's that conspiracy at work again, trying to cover up this event. > > > > Stories like this are covered by Christian News organizations that are > > broadcast on Christian radio shows. The regular news media does not > > usually cover stories like this one. The national news media usually bury > > stories about the genocide in Darfur. In the local newspaper, a story > > about Darfur was on page 5--it should have been on page 1. > > Like I said, "It's the conspiracy, man!" I would call it an "agenda". I don't know why the news media is ignoring the genocide in Darfur. I rarely ever see any stories about it. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <f4u6pm$3i7$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f4s386$se9$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Then by what logic are those who ARE healed "evidence for god?" > > > > It's a case by case basis. In the case of Cheryl Prewitt and William Kent, > > it is my opinion that it is evidence of God. That does not mean that all > > healings are evidence for God. For example, if someone develops a common > > cold and the man prays--and the cold goes away in three weeks---that is > > not evidence for God. > > I.e. "If I think it's evidence for god, then it's evidence for god. If I > don't, then it's not." Each person has to come to their own conclusions. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <atg5739lur6fsekm6c580tubbl9odh846l@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >> By that standard, the relevant judge of what Bill did is Hillary. > > > >He lied to her also. He did not admit the truth until Monica produced the > >spotted dress. > > We do not know whether he lied to Hillary. My memory is not perfect but I seem to recall seeing her on a television show claiming that Bill was innocent and that it was a "right wing" conspiracy". The following day or week, Monica produced the spotted dress. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <f4u4ql$1ae$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <BIhci.6$C31.1@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-1406071417560001@66-52-22-66.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>> In article <f4s36c$se9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <f4rce1$54j$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>> Cheryl Prewitt told me that she was healed by God. She stated that > >>>>>>> she saw > >>>>>>> her leg bone grow two inches. I believed her testimony. She has gave > >>>>>>> her > >>>>>>> testimony at many different churches. Her name is mentioned on over > >>>>>>> 700 > >>>>>>> websites. > >>>>>> "UFO" is mentioned on 37,800,000 websites. Are they real? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The words "Jason" "owes" and "money" match to 467,000 websites. Does > >>>>>> that mean you're a deadbeat? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The phrase "pigs fly" matches to 432,000 and "flying pigs" match to > >>>>>> 204,000 sites. Are pigs now flying? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "Jason is smart" matched to 3,560 sites. Well, that proves the number > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> sites google matches is worthless for proving something. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Oh, wait, "Jason is an idiot" matched 6,490 sites. Maybe there really > >>>>>> IS > >>>>>> something to this whole "mentioned on over XXXXX sites" thing. > >>>>> Google your full name and determine if it is mentioned on over 700 > >>>>> websites. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Personalized Results 1 - 100 of about 577,000 English pages for "Michael > >>>> Anderson". > >>>> > >>>> Your point is, again? > >>> Your first name and last name are common names. > >>> > >>> One more try--I found this name in the phone book-try it: > >>> John Pietrzak > >> You can't just count web sites, you have to read them. I think I established > >> that point very clearly in my prior post. > > > > What was the result related to John Pietrzak? > > 288. So what does that prove? That is shocking. You made your point. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <f4u3vf$hf$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f4rc1o$46b$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <WgYbi.3170$s8.2400@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>>> news:Jason-1306071303300001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>>>> The people (like Cheryl Prewitt) that are healed by God are evidence that > >>>>> there is a God. Even when Jesus was on this earth, he did not heal > >>>>> everyone that needed to be healed. > >>>> Mighty convenient Jason, your god doesn't heal all just select ones. > > I guess > >>>> you need it that way to fit what we all know to be reality. > >>> If God healed all people of all medical problems--people would never die. > >> Then why heal ANY of them? Your "logic" just doesn't pass muster. > > > > Because he enjoys answering the prayers of his servants--such as Christian > > farmers praying for rain. > > And what about the xian farmers that pray for rain and don't get it? > > Are you saying god is capricious and arbitrary? There is a scripture that says something like this: God's ways are not our ways. God's thoughts are not our thoughts. The point is that God has a reason for every action he takes. We don't know his reasons. The most that we can do is to make guesses based upon various situations. Examples: rainstorm; the healing of Cheryl Prewitt and William A. Kent. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1506071256020001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f4u3vf$hf$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <f4rc1o$46b$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >>> In article <WgYbi.3170$s8.2400@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >>>> news:Jason-1306071303300001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >>>>> The people (like Cheryl Prewitt) that are healed by God are > evidence that >> >>>>> there is a God. Even when Jesus was on this earth, he did not heal >> >>>>> everyone that needed to be healed. >> >>>> Mighty convenient Jason, your god doesn't heal all just select ones. >> > I guess >> >>>> you need it that way to fit what we all know to be reality. >> >>> If God healed all people of all medical problems--people would never >> >>> die. >> >> Then why heal ANY of them? Your "logic" just doesn't pass muster. >> > >> > Because he enjoys answering the prayers of his servants--such as >> > Christian >> > farmers praying for rain. >> >> And what about the xian farmers that pray for rain and don't get it? >> >> Are you saying god is capricious and arbitrary? > > There is a scripture that says something like this: > God's ways are not our ways. God's thoughts are not our thoughts. > > The point is that God has a reason for every action he takes. We don't > know his reasons. The most that we can do is to make guesses based upon > various situations. Examples: rainstorm; the healing of Cheryl Prewitt and > William A. Kent. Examples: hurricanes, droughts, floods, disease, earthquakes, etc.,etc. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1506071232280001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f4u6pm$3i7$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <f4s386$se9$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> Then by what logic are those who ARE healed "evidence for god?" >> > >> > It's a case by case basis. In the case of Cheryl Prewitt and William >> > Kent, >> > it is my opinion that it is evidence of God. That does not mean that >> > all >> > healings are evidence for God. For example, if someone develops a >> > common >> > cold and the man prays--and the cold goes away in three weeks---that is >> > not evidence for God. >> >> I.e. "If I think it's evidence for god, then it's evidence for god. If I >> don't, then it's not." > > Each person has to come to their own conclusions. Each person needs to examine the evidence before coming to their own conclusions. I realize this is counterintuitive for you but you really need to try it. 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.