Guest Jason Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 In article <fenqa9$hge$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <6bktg3thdaceg79fb6fjvj4h8q5s79jrad@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:19:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>> Those are Jewish laws. Read the 10th chapter of the book of Acts. Peter > >>> was given a vision from God and the end result was that God told Peter > >>> that Christians could eat any types of meat they wanted to eat. > >>> > >> What evidence do you have that Paul's hallucinations have anything to do > >> with any gods? > > > > I have faith that the Bible is true. If you choose to believe that Peter > > was having hallucinations--so be it. > > No, you have faith that your fallacious reading of the bible is true. > Peter's vision had NOTHING to do with repealing of the dietary laws. The > bible clearly stated that Peter did not want to preach to the gentiles > (i.e. the unclean) and God used this vision to say that nothing was > unclean IF god said it wasn't and if god had cleansed it. The food in > the vision was only an allegory for the people that god wanted Peter to > preach to. > > Of course, it's ALL bogus but your reading of it is even more so. The dietary habits of Christians and Jews are different. The reason for those different diatary habits is due to Peter's vision. Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 In article <fenqhn$hge$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Free Lunch wrote: > > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:04:15 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0210071104150001@66-53-210-54.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >> In article <fdtrbd$gjt$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> I.e. the bible basically talks about doing things to EXCESS. Heroin > >>> addiction is such an excess. But a single use of heroin is not. So why > >>> is it immoral? > >> Good point--I was referring to an addiction to heroin. I seem to recall > >> that I indicated in one post that people should not conduct a single use > >> of heroin or cocaine since the casual use of heroin or cocaine could lead > >> to an addiction. > >> > > So addiction, a natural, but undesirable physical process is immoral? > > What a self-righteous, unforgiving prig you are Jason. > > He also can't explain why eating is NOT immoral when it "could lead to > an addiction [to food and its excessive consumption.]" There are MANY > things that you can do to excess and that can lead to an addiction and > overuse in some people. We need food to live but do NOT need heroin or cocaine to live. Yes, many things could lead to an addiction. A child may become addicted to starting fires. The end result could be that he burns down a house. If you had a son that liked starting fires--would you try to stop that addiction? I would. I feel the same way about illegal drugs such as heroin and cocaine. I would NEVER try those drugs to see what they are like since I would be concerned that it could lead to an addiction. I don't like playing with fire. Ask any addict how the addiction started and they will tell you that it was because they took heroin or cocaine and liked it so much that they wanted to take it again. That eventually lead to an addiction. If they had NOT taken that first "hit" they would not have become addicted. I have talked to various former addicts of illegal drugs. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:28:40 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1210071228410001@67-150-125-39.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >In article <fenqa9$hge$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <6bktg3thdaceg79fb6fjvj4h8q5s79jrad@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:19:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >>> Those are Jewish laws. Read the 10th chapter of the book of Acts. Peter >> >>> was given a vision from God and the end result was that God told Peter >> >>> that Christians could eat any types of meat they wanted to eat. >> >>> >> >> What evidence do you have that Paul's hallucinations have anything to do >> >> with any gods? >> > >> > I have faith that the Bible is true. If you choose to believe that Peter >> > was having hallucinations--so be it. >> >> No, you have faith that your fallacious reading of the bible is true. >> Peter's vision had NOTHING to do with repealing of the dietary laws. The >> bible clearly stated that Peter did not want to preach to the gentiles >> (i.e. the unclean) and God used this vision to say that nothing was >> unclean IF god said it wasn't and if god had cleansed it. The food in >> the vision was only an allegory for the people that god wanted Peter to >> preach to. >> >> Of course, it's ALL bogus but your reading of it is even more so. > >The dietary habits of Christians and Jews are different. The reason for >those different diatary habits is due to Peter's vision. > You assume that the author of Acts, someone who appears to have been one of Paul's sycophants, had actual knowledge that this happened to Peter. What evidence do you have to support this? Quote
Guest 655321 Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > Ask any addict how the addiction started and they will tell you that it > was because they took heroin or cocaine and liked it so much that they > wanted to take it again. That eventually lead to an addiction. What do you ask a user of heroine -- or coke or pot or booze or Benadryl -- who is not addicted? > If they had NOT taken that first "hit" they would not have become addicted. That's so obvious it's stupid. You can't get to the end -- or even the middle -- of any path without taking the first step. > I have talked to various former addicts of illegal drugs. So? You clearly haven't learned much. All you've gained from that experience is more stuff to ramble on irrelevantly about. -- 655321 Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 13, 2007 Posted October 13, 2007 In article <htnvg3di7c7lf438t1bv7e6j2f79bern4b@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:28:40 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1210071228410001@67-150-125-39.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >In article <fenqa9$hge$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > In article <6bktg3thdaceg79fb6fjvj4h8q5s79jrad@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:19:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >>> Those are Jewish laws. Read the 10th chapter of the book of Acts. Peter > >> >>> was given a vision from God and the end result was that God told Peter > >> >>> that Christians could eat any types of meat they wanted to eat. > >> >>> > >> >> What evidence do you have that Paul's hallucinations have anything to do > >> >> with any gods? > >> > > >> > I have faith that the Bible is true. If you choose to believe that Peter > >> > was having hallucinations--so be it. > >> > >> No, you have faith that your fallacious reading of the bible is true. > >> Peter's vision had NOTHING to do with repealing of the dietary laws. The > >> bible clearly stated that Peter did not want to preach to the gentiles > >> (i.e. the unclean) and God used this vision to say that nothing was > >> unclean IF god said it wasn't and if god had cleansed it. The food in > >> the vision was only an allegory for the people that god wanted Peter to > >> preach to. > >> > >> Of course, it's ALL bogus but your reading of it is even more so. > > > >The dietary habits of Christians and Jews are different. The reason for > >those different diatary habits is due to Peter's vision. > > > You assume that the author of Acts, someone who appears to have been one > of Paul's sycophants, had actual knowledge that this happened to Peter. > What evidence do you have to support this? I once wrote a college report related to Plato. Did Plato really write the "Republic" and the "Symposium"? I had no problem believing that Plato done that. Why do you have a problem believing the info. that is in the Bible? There are about 1.9 billion Christians in the world. They have no problem believing the information that is in the Bible. Can you prove that Plato wrote the "Republic"? If not, how do you expect me to prove that Paul wrote the book of Corinthians? Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 13, 2007 Posted October 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fenqa9$hge$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <6bktg3thdaceg79fb6fjvj4h8q5s79jrad@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:19:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>> Those are Jewish laws. Read the 10th chapter of the book of Acts. Peter >>>>> was given a vision from God and the end result was that God told Peter >>>>> that Christians could eat any types of meat they wanted to eat. >>>>> >>>> What evidence do you have that Paul's hallucinations have anything to do >>>> with any gods? >>> I have faith that the Bible is true. If you choose to believe that Peter >>> was having hallucinations--so be it. >> No, you have faith that your fallacious reading of the bible is true. >> Peter's vision had NOTHING to do with repealing of the dietary laws. The >> bible clearly stated that Peter did not want to preach to the gentiles >> (i.e. the unclean) and God used this vision to say that nothing was >> unclean IF god said it wasn't and if god had cleansed it. The food in >> the vision was only an allegory for the people that god wanted Peter to >> preach to. >> >> Of course, it's ALL bogus but your reading of it is even more so. > > The dietary habits of Christians and Jews are different. The reason for > those different diatary habits is due to Peter's vision. They're different due to a fallacious reading of that part of the bible. You just can't handle the fact that they've gotten it wrong. Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 13, 2007 Posted October 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fenqhn$hge$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Free Lunch wrote: >>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:04:15 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>> <Jason-0210071104150001@66-53-210-54.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >>>> In article <fdtrbd$gjt$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>> I.e. the bible basically talks about doing things to EXCESS. Heroin >>>>> addiction is such an excess. But a single use of heroin is not. So why >>>>> is it immoral? >>>> Good point--I was referring to an addiction to heroin. I seem to recall >>>> that I indicated in one post that people should not conduct a single use >>>> of heroin or cocaine since the casual use of heroin or cocaine could lead >>>> to an addiction. >>>> >>> So addiction, a natural, but undesirable physical process is immoral? >>> What a self-righteous, unforgiving prig you are Jason. >> He also can't explain why eating is NOT immoral when it "could lead to >> an addiction [to food and its excessive consumption.]" There are MANY >> things that you can do to excess and that can lead to an addiction and >> overuse in some people. > > We need food to live but do NOT need heroin or cocaine to live. Yes, many > things could lead to an addiction. A child may become addicted to starting > fires. The end result could be that he burns down a house. If you had a > son that liked starting fires--would you try to stop that addiction? I > would. So is starting a single fire to burn some leaves immoral? > I feel the same way about illegal drugs such as heroin and cocaine. I > would NEVER try those drugs to see what they are like since I would be > concerned that it could lead to an addiction. I don't like playing with > fire. There are tons of things that are not required for life that can become addictive to some people. Are all those things immoral? > Ask any addict how the addiction started and they will tell you that it > was because they took heroin or cocaine and liked it so much that they > wanted to take it again. That eventually lead to an addiction. If they had > NOT taken that first "hit" they would not have become addicted. > > I have talked to various former addicts of illegal drugs. How many have you talked to that took illegal drugs that did NOT become addicted? I've tried some of the illegals (not coke or heroin but others) when I was younger (I didn't really care for them so didn't continue.) I never became addicted. Was my experimenting immoral? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted October 13, 2007 Posted October 13, 2007 On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:50:06 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1210072350070001@66-53-218-17.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >In article <htnvg3di7c7lf438t1bv7e6j2f79bern4b@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:28:40 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1210071228410001@67-150-125-39.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >In article <fenqa9$hge$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <6bktg3thdaceg79fb6fjvj4h8q5s79jrad@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:19:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >>> Those are Jewish laws. Read the 10th chapter of the book of Acts. Peter >> >> >>> was given a vision from God and the end result was that God told Peter >> >> >>> that Christians could eat any types of meat they wanted to eat. >> >> >>> >> >> >> What evidence do you have that Paul's hallucinations have anything to do >> >> >> with any gods? >> >> > >> >> > I have faith that the Bible is true. If you choose to believe that Peter >> >> > was having hallucinations--so be it. >> >> >> >> No, you have faith that your fallacious reading of the bible is true. >> >> Peter's vision had NOTHING to do with repealing of the dietary laws. The >> >> bible clearly stated that Peter did not want to preach to the gentiles >> >> (i.e. the unclean) and God used this vision to say that nothing was >> >> unclean IF god said it wasn't and if god had cleansed it. The food in >> >> the vision was only an allegory for the people that god wanted Peter to >> >> preach to. >> >> >> >> Of course, it's ALL bogus but your reading of it is even more so. >> > >> >The dietary habits of Christians and Jews are different. The reason for >> >those different diatary habits is due to Peter's vision. >> > >> You assume that the author of Acts, someone who appears to have been one >> of Paul's sycophants, had actual knowledge that this happened to Peter. >> What evidence do you have to support this? > >I once wrote a college report related to Plato. Did Plato really write the >"Republic" and the "Symposium"? I had no problem believing that Plato done >that. Why do you have a problem believing the info. that is in the Bible? >There are about 1.9 billion Christians in the world. They have no problem >believing the information that is in the Bible. The real question in Plato is "Did Socrates say what Plato claims he said?" >Can you prove that Plato wrote the "Republic"? If not, how do you expect >me to prove that Paul wrote the book of Corinthians? I don't care what Paul wrote, you haven't laid the foundation for the claim that God had anything to do with these writings. Anyone can write religious texts. I can think of three Americans who have started religions by writing their own scriptures: Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, and L Ron Hubbard. Why is Paul different from them? Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 13, 2007 Posted October 13, 2007 In article <feqc1i$443$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <fenqa9$hge$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <6bktg3thdaceg79fb6fjvj4h8q5s79jrad@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:19:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>> Those are Jewish laws. Read the 10th chapter of the book of Acts. Peter > >>>>> was given a vision from God and the end result was that God told Peter > >>>>> that Christians could eat any types of meat they wanted to eat. > >>>>> > >>>> What evidence do you have that Paul's hallucinations have anything to do > >>>> with any gods? > >>> I have faith that the Bible is true. If you choose to believe that Peter > >>> was having hallucinations--so be it. > >> No, you have faith that your fallacious reading of the bible is true. > >> Peter's vision had NOTHING to do with repealing of the dietary laws. The > >> bible clearly stated that Peter did not want to preach to the gentiles > >> (i.e. the unclean) and God used this vision to say that nothing was > >> unclean IF god said it wasn't and if god had cleansed it. The food in > >> the vision was only an allegory for the people that god wanted Peter to > >> preach to. > >> > >> Of course, it's ALL bogus but your reading of it is even more so. > > > > The dietary habits of Christians and Jews are different. The reason for > > those different diatary habits is due to Peter's vision. > > They're different due to a fallacious reading of that part of the bible. > You just can't handle the fact that they've gotten it wrong. If you choose to eat the Jewish diet--so be it. I wonder if Jews that have become Christians continue to eat the Jewish diet? I no longer eat meat (except for fish) so it's not an issue related to my diet. Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 13, 2007 Posted October 13, 2007 In article <68h1h35kpttpqudu90oticck26f7h526fi@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:50:06 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1210072350070001@66-53-218-17.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >In article <htnvg3di7c7lf438t1bv7e6j2f79bern4b@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:28:40 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1210071228410001@67-150-125-39.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >> >In article <fenqa9$hge$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> > In article <6bktg3thdaceg79fb6fjvj4h8q5s79jrad@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:19:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >>> Those are Jewish laws. Read the 10th chapter of the book of Acts. Peter > >> >> >>> was given a vision from God and the end result was that God told Peter > >> >> >>> that Christians could eat any types of meat they wanted to eat. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> What evidence do you have that Paul's hallucinations have anything to do > >> >> >> with any gods? > >> >> > > >> >> > I have faith that the Bible is true. If you choose to believe that Peter > >> >> > was having hallucinations--so be it. > >> >> > >> >> No, you have faith that your fallacious reading of the bible is true. > >> >> Peter's vision had NOTHING to do with repealing of the dietary laws. The > >> >> bible clearly stated that Peter did not want to preach to the gentiles > >> >> (i.e. the unclean) and God used this vision to say that nothing was > >> >> unclean IF god said it wasn't and if god had cleansed it. The food in > >> >> the vision was only an allegory for the people that god wanted Peter to > >> >> preach to. > >> >> > >> >> Of course, it's ALL bogus but your reading of it is even more so. > >> > > >> >The dietary habits of Christians and Jews are different. The reason for > >> >those different diatary habits is due to Peter's vision. > >> > > >> You assume that the author of Acts, someone who appears to have been one > >> of Paul's sycophants, had actual knowledge that this happened to Peter. > >> What evidence do you have to support this? > > > >I once wrote a college report related to Plato. Did Plato really write the > >"Republic" and the "Symposium"? I had no problem believing that Plato done > >that. Why do you have a problem believing the info. that is in the Bible? > >There are about 1.9 billion Christians in the world. They have no problem > >believing the information that is in the Bible. > > The real question in Plato is "Did Socrates say what Plato claims he > said?" > > >Can you prove that Plato wrote the "Republic"? If not, how do you expect > >me to prove that Paul wrote the book of Corinthians? > > I don't care what Paul wrote, you haven't laid the foundation for the > claim that God had anything to do with these writings. Anyone can write > religious texts. I can think of three Americans who have started > religions by writing their own scriptures: Joseph Smith, Mary Baker > Eddy, and L Ron Hubbard. Why is Paul different from them? Because he was writing about the only true religion. Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 13, 2007 Posted October 13, 2007 In article <feqc96$4m1$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <fenqhn$hge$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Free Lunch wrote: > >>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:04:15 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>> <Jason-0210071104150001@66-53-210-54.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >>>> In article <fdtrbd$gjt$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>>>> I.e. the bible basically talks about doing things to EXCESS. Heroin > >>>>> addiction is such an excess. But a single use of heroin is not. So why > >>>>> is it immoral? > >>>> Good point--I was referring to an addiction to heroin. I seem to recall > >>>> that I indicated in one post that people should not conduct a single use > >>>> of heroin or cocaine since the casual use of heroin or cocaine could lead > >>>> to an addiction. > >>>> > >>> So addiction, a natural, but undesirable physical process is immoral? > >>> What a self-righteous, unforgiving prig you are Jason. > >> He also can't explain why eating is NOT immoral when it "could lead to > >> an addiction [to food and its excessive consumption.]" There are MANY > >> things that you can do to excess and that can lead to an addiction and > >> overuse in some people. > > > > We need food to live but do NOT need heroin or cocaine to live. Yes, many > > things could lead to an addiction. A child may become addicted to starting > > fires. The end result could be that he burns down a house. If you had a > > son that liked starting fires--would you try to stop that addiction? I > > would. > > So is starting a single fire to burn some leaves immoral? > > > I feel the same way about illegal drugs such as heroin and cocaine. I > > would NEVER try those drugs to see what they are like since I would be > > concerned that it could lead to an addiction. I don't like playing with > > fire. > > There are tons of things that are not required for life that can become > addictive to some people. Are all those things immoral? > > > Ask any addict how the addiction started and they will tell you that it > > was because they took heroin or cocaine and liked it so much that they > > wanted to take it again. That eventually lead to an addiction. If they had > > NOT taken that first "hit" they would not have become addicted. > > > > I have talked to various former addicts of illegal drugs. > > How many have you talked to that took illegal drugs that did NOT become > addicted? I've tried some of the illegals (not coke or heroin but > others) when I was younger (I didn't really care for them so didn't > continue.) I never became addicted. Was my experimenting immoral? That's good news but there are thousands of other Americans that took the first hit of heroin and/or cocaine and liked it so much that they eventually became addicts. That is the reason that illegal drugs should NEVER become legal. If all illegal drugs became legal--that would cause millions of Americans to become addicted to those drugs. As you know, millions of Americans are addicted to legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol. Do you believe that stores should allowed to sell heroin and cocaine in much the same way that they now sell cigarettes and alcohol? Jason Jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted October 13, 2007 Posted October 13, 2007 On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:56:56 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1310071456570001@66-53-215-229.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >In article <68h1h35kpttpqudu90oticck26f7h526fi@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:50:06 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1210072350070001@66-53-218-17.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >In article <htnvg3di7c7lf438t1bv7e6j2f79bern4b@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:28:40 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-1210071228410001@67-150-125-39.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >> >In article <fenqa9$hge$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> > In article <6bktg3thdaceg79fb6fjvj4h8q5s79jrad@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:19:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >>> Those are Jewish laws. Read the 10th chapter of the book of >Acts. Peter >> >> >> >>> was given a vision from God and the end result was that God >told Peter >> >> >> >>> that Christians could eat any types of meat they wanted to eat. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> What evidence do you have that Paul's hallucinations have >anything to do >> >> >> >> with any gods? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I have faith that the Bible is true. If you choose to believe >that Peter >> >> >> > was having hallucinations--so be it. >> >> >> >> >> >> No, you have faith that your fallacious reading of the bible is true. >> >> >> Peter's vision had NOTHING to do with repealing of the dietary >laws. The >> >> >> bible clearly stated that Peter did not want to preach to the gentiles >> >> >> (i.e. the unclean) and God used this vision to say that nothing was >> >> >> unclean IF god said it wasn't and if god had cleansed it. The food in >> >> >> the vision was only an allegory for the people that god wanted Peter to >> >> >> preach to. >> >> >> >> >> >> Of course, it's ALL bogus but your reading of it is even more so. >> >> > >> >> >The dietary habits of Christians and Jews are different. The reason for >> >> >those different diatary habits is due to Peter's vision. >> >> > >> >> You assume that the author of Acts, someone who appears to have been one >> >> of Paul's sycophants, had actual knowledge that this happened to Peter. >> >> What evidence do you have to support this? >> > >> >I once wrote a college report related to Plato. Did Plato really write the >> >"Republic" and the "Symposium"? I had no problem believing that Plato done >> >that. Why do you have a problem believing the info. that is in the Bible? >> >There are about 1.9 billion Christians in the world. They have no problem >> >believing the information that is in the Bible. >> >> The real question in Plato is "Did Socrates say what Plato claims he >> said?" >> >> >Can you prove that Plato wrote the "Republic"? If not, how do you expect >> >me to prove that Paul wrote the book of Corinthians? >> >> I don't care what Paul wrote, you haven't laid the foundation for the >> claim that God had anything to do with these writings. Anyone can write >> religious texts. I can think of three Americans who have started >> religions by writing their own scriptures: Joseph Smith, Mary Baker >> Eddy, and L Ron Hubbard. Why is Paul different from them? > >Because he was writing about the only true religion. > That is a conclusion that you can only draw if the evidence supports it. Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 Jason wrote: > If you choose to eat the Jewish diet--so be it. Why would I? I'm neither jewish or xian so your rules don't bother me. I wonder if Jews that have > become Christians continue to eat the Jewish diet? If they're following the bible, they do. I no longer eat meat > (except for fish) so it's not an issue related to my diet. Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 Jason wrote: > That's good news but there are thousands of other Americans that took the > first hit of heroin and/or cocaine and liked it so much that they > eventually became addicts. There's thousands of other Americans that started their first fire burning leaves and liked it so much that they eventually became arsonists. There's thousands of other Americans that took darvacet for pain and liked it so much that the eventually became addicted to darvacet. There's thousands of other Americans that took their first dose of allergy medicine and liked it so much that they eventually became addicted to benadryl. There's thousands of other Americans that did X and liked it so much that they eventually became addicted to X. What makes a single use of heroin or cocaine any less moral than a single use of a prescription medicine or even an OTC medicine? Quit trying to deflect the topic into addictions. We're talking about the morality of a since usage. That is the reason that illegal drugs should > NEVER become legal. If all illegal drugs became legal--that would cause > millions of Americans to become addicted to those drugs. No, it wouldn't. As you know, > millions of Americans are addicted to legal drugs such as tobacco and > alcohol. Do you believe that stores should allowed to sell heroin and > cocaine in much the same way that they now sell cigarettes and alcohol? Do you really believe prohibition REDUCED the consumption of and addiction to alcohol? Education is what will reduce the use of drugs, not prohibition. Quote
Guest cactus Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <68h1h35kpttpqudu90oticck26f7h526fi@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:50:06 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1210072350070001@66-53-218-17.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >>> In article <htnvg3di7c7lf438t1bv7e6j2f79bern4b@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:28:40 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-1210071228410001@67-150-125-39.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >>>>> In article <fenqa9$hge$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In article <6bktg3thdaceg79fb6fjvj4h8q5s79jrad@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:19:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>> Those are Jewish laws. Read the 10th chapter of the book of > Acts. Peter >>>>>>>>> was given a vision from God and the end result was that God > told Peter >>>>>>>>> that Christians could eat any types of meat they wanted to eat. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What evidence do you have that Paul's hallucinations have > anything to do >>>>>>>> with any gods? >>>>>>> I have faith that the Bible is true. If you choose to believe > that Peter >>>>>>> was having hallucinations--so be it. >>>>>> No, you have faith that your fallacious reading of the bible is true. >>>>>> Peter's vision had NOTHING to do with repealing of the dietary > laws. The >>>>>> bible clearly stated that Peter did not want to preach to the gentiles >>>>>> (i.e. the unclean) and God used this vision to say that nothing was >>>>>> unclean IF god said it wasn't and if god had cleansed it. The food in >>>>>> the vision was only an allegory for the people that god wanted Peter to >>>>>> preach to. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, it's ALL bogus but your reading of it is even more so. >>>>> The dietary habits of Christians and Jews are different. The reason for >>>>> those different diatary habits is due to Peter's vision. >>>>> >>>> You assume that the author of Acts, someone who appears to have been one >>>> of Paul's sycophants, had actual knowledge that this happened to Peter. >>>> What evidence do you have to support this? >>> I once wrote a college report related to Plato. Did Plato really write the >>> "Republic" and the "Symposium"? I had no problem believing that Plato done >>> that. Why do you have a problem believing the info. that is in the Bible? >>> There are about 1.9 billion Christians in the world. They have no problem >>> believing the information that is in the Bible. >> The real question in Plato is "Did Socrates say what Plato claims he >> said?" >> >>> Can you prove that Plato wrote the "Republic"? If not, how do you expect >>> me to prove that Paul wrote the book of Corinthians? >> I don't care what Paul wrote, you haven't laid the foundation for the >> claim that God had anything to do with these writings. Anyone can write >> religious texts. I can think of three Americans who have started >> religions by writing their own scriptures: Joseph Smith, Mary Baker >> Eddy, and L Ron Hubbard. Why is Paul different from them? > > Because he was writing about the only true religion. > > Jason, Christianity is as true as any of the others. If you believe that, you believe that EVERYONE else is wrong, is worshiping the wrong god or gods, you believe that EVERYONE who is not a Christian will end up in "hell," whatever that is, and you believe that they have no merit in this world or the next. Sick. Quote
Guest Masked Avenger Posted October 15, 2007 Posted October 15, 2007 Jason wrote: >>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>> Those are Jewish laws. Read the 10th chapter of the book of > Acts. Peter >>>>>>>>> was given a vision from God and the end result was that God > told Peter >>>>>>>>> that Christians could eat any types of meat they wanted to eat. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What evidence do you have that Paul's hallucinations have > anything to do >>>>>>>> with any gods? >>>>>>> I have faith that the Bible is true. If you choose to believe > that Peter >>>>>>> was having hallucinations--so be it. >>>>>> No, you have faith that your fallacious reading of the bible is true. >>>>>> Peter's vision had NOTHING to do with repealing of the dietary > laws. The >>>>>> bible clearly stated that Peter did not want to preach to the gentiles >>>>>> (i.e. the unclean) and God used this vision to say that nothing was >>>>>> unclean IF god said it wasn't and if god had cleansed it. The food in >>>>>> the vision was only an allegory for the people that god wanted Peter to >>>>>> preach to. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, it's ALL bogus but your reading of it is even more so. >>>>> The dietary habits of Christians and Jews are different. The reason for >>>>> those different diatary habits is due to Peter's vision. >>>>> >>>> You assume that the author of Acts, someone who appears to have been one >>>> of Paul's sycophants, had actual knowledge that this happened to Peter. >>>> What evidence do you have to support this? >>> I once wrote a college report related to Plato. Did Plato really write the >>> "Republic" and the "Symposium"? I had no problem believing that Plato done >>> that. Why do you have a problem believing the info. that is in the Bible? >>> There are about 1.9 billion Christians in the world. They have no problem >>> believing the information that is in the Bible. >> The real question in Plato is "Did Socrates say what Plato claims he >> said?" >> >>> Can you prove that Plato wrote the "Republic"? If not, how do you expect >>> me to prove that Paul wrote the book of Corinthians? >> I don't care what Paul wrote, you haven't laid the foundation for the >> claim that God had anything to do with these writings. Anyone can write >> religious texts. I can think of three Americans who have started >> religions by writing their own scriptures: Joseph Smith, Mary Baker >> Eddy, and L Ron Hubbard. Why is Paul different from them? > > Because he was writing about the only true religion. Spoken like a true moron ........... What makes you so sure the Jews aren't right ? Or the Mormons, or the Buddhists, or the Hindus ....etc.. etc. .......... What evidence do you have that makes your assertion correct ? -- MA ....Yoiks .... and away ..... Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity ............. and I'm not sure about the Universe .......... - A. Einstein Does Schr Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted October 15, 2007 Posted October 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > > Because he was writing about the only true religion. There is no such thing. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:56:56 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <68h1h35kpttpqudu90oticck26f7h526fi@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> I can think of three Americans who have started >> religions by writing their own scriptures: Joseph Smith, Mary Baker >> Eddy, and L Ron Hubbard. Why is Paul different from them? >Because he was writing about the only true religion. And they were each writing about THEIR one true religion. What objective evidence do you have that they were wrong, or that Paul was right? -- Al at Webdingers dot com Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:03:43 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >That's good news but there are thousands of other Americans that took the >first hit of heroin and/or cocaine and liked it so much that they >eventually became addicts. One doesn't become addicted to a drug because he "liked it so much". Some people are genetically predisposed to addiction to certain substances, certain people are genetically predisposed to addiction to other substances and some people aren't genetically predisposed to chemical addiction. >That is the reason that illegal drugs should >NEVER become legal. Why shouldn't someone not predisposed to addiction to a certain substance be prohibited from using it? >If all illegal drugs became legal--that would cause >millions of Americans to become addicted to those drugs. Really? Alcohol is legal, and I'm not addicted to it. Nicotine is legal and I'm not addicted to it. > As you know, >millions of Americans are addicted to legal drugs such as tobacco and >alcohol. Do you believe that stores should allowed to sell heroin and >cocaine in much the same way that they now sell cigarettes and alcohol? Do you believe that hospitals should be allowed to give morphine (a pure form of heroin) to patients who are predisposed to addiction to morphine? It causes addiction even faster than street heroin. -- Al at Webdingers dot com Let me get this straight: You believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father will let you live forever if you pretend to eat his flesh, drink his blood, and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that he put there a long time ago as punishment for all humanity because a rib-woman made from a dust-man was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magical tree. -- Unkno Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 08:50:17 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >Jason wrote: >I wonder if Jews that have >> become Christians continue to eat the Jewish diet? >If they're following the bible, they do. Christians following the Bible? Is this alt.satire? -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment. " - Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215 Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 08:50:17 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> > wrote: > >> Jason wrote: > >> I wonder if Jews that have >>> become Christians continue to eat the Jewish diet? > >> If they're following the bible, they do. > > Christians following the Bible? Is this alt.satire? You're right. Someone needs to slap me silly for even thinking such a thing. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:13:03 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 08:50:17 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Jason wrote: >> >>> I wonder if Jews that have >>>> become Christians continue to eat the Jewish diet? >> >>> If they're following the bible, they do. >> >> Christians following the Bible? Is this alt.satire? > >You're right. Someone needs to slap me silly for even thinking such a thing. Silly? We'll slap you with a Christian - some 'silly' will surely rub off. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "The study of geology is ok-But not when it contradicts what is laid out in the Bible that the earth is more than 10,000 years old." - Doug Lee, Creationist Quote
Guest stoney Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:08:59 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 15:41:13 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: > >>On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:43:42 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:37:59 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <629rf31mhi0deiptdrls09rgfdu6k9eh2f@4ax.com>, Al Klein >>>><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:30:02 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >In article <5m4dlrFbkefiU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>>> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >>>>> >> >>>>> >> snip >>>>> >> >>>>> >> > I also find the nature shows on television to be comical when the >>>>narrator >>>>> >> > starts discussing evolution. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I bet you do - How sad. >>>>> > >>>>> >Have you heard about "The Big Lie". It means that if a "lie" is told over >>>>> >and over for dozens of years--that most people will believe the "lie" is >>>>> >actually a true fact. >>>>> > >>>>> >For example, many people once believed that the earth was the center of >>>>> >the universe. Most people believed that Big Lie. >>>>> >>>>> That was a big lie told by your religion. >>>>> >>>>> So is the one about your god existing. >>>> >>>>So it the one about naturalistic abiogenesis and the primordial pond. >>> >>>The primordial pond existed, Jason. Exactly when the planet got cool >>>enough for some gasses to condense into liquids isn't known, but it IS >>>known that it happened. If it hadn't happened we'd still be living on >>>a desert world. >>> >>>And life DID Start at some time in the past on this planet. We KNOW >>>that there was no life here before there was a 'here', so life started >>>SOMETIME. Since there's absolutely not the slightest shred of >>>evidence of anything supernatural (and never has been any), life got >>>its start naturally. >>> >>>Any fairly stupid 10 year old could follow that logic. >> >>Since Jason's mental age is 5-1/2..... > >And any normally intelligent 5-1/2 year old could follow it ... There is that. I was trying to be generous. Quote
Guest stoney Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:16:51 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > >snip >> >> Because he was writing about the only true religion. > >There is no such thing. They're all truely false. Quote
Guest Brian E. Clark Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 In article <5lsqt6F9t8feU1@mid.individual.net>, Robibnikoff said... > > None, now he has to pad his little black book with > > personal speculation to keep the faith. > > So, business as usual, eh? Indeed so, going all the way back to the beginnings of the faith. We're told that when Jesus said he'd return within lifetime of his followers, he really meant he'd be back sometime in the next several thousand years. And curiously, that return is always just around the corner, with signs and wonders pointing toward Jesus's imminent reappearance. Such reworking of the material continues today: When Jesus said 'render unto Caesar,' in a context point-on applying to taxation, he really meant that Christians should oppose taxation of any kind, especially for the rich. The combination of Jesus's silence regarding homosexuality and his plain condemnation of divorce shows that Christians should persecute gays and ignore divorcers. (C.f., Jesus's silence about abortion.) When Jesus warned against storing up treasures on earth, and directed his followers to help the poor even at considerable cost to themselves, he really meant that Christians should seek to acquire great wealth, to ignore the plight of others, and to oppose programs which aid poor people. -- ----------- Brian E. Clark 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.