Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:34:44 -0800, Jason wrote: >> You do know that the US fought Mexicans (christians), Germans >> (christians), each other (christians), Spain (christians), and the >> english (christians). That's just the what I could pull out of my head >> quickly about the USA. The list goes on and on, no jews, muslims, >> shintos, buddists, or the like required. Do you REALLY want to keep >> going there? > The major difference is that nuclear weapons were not used in any of > those wars. Were they available then? As far as I'm aware they weren't. Other weapons - guns, bombs, knives, you name it - were available, and were used. Thus we know they used the available weaponry, and we have no reason to think they wouldn't have resorted to other weapons if pressed, now do we? Thus their not using nukes in those wars is pretty much irrelevant. > If Iran starts an assembly line for nuclear weapons, > millions of people in various cities will be killed. More people will > die in one year than died in all of those wars that you mentioned in > your post. Last I checked, it wasn't Iran that was the problem, any more than it's the US that's the problem. In the US it's more generally a pack of psychotic yipyos who get in power that are the problem; in Iran, much the same, the only difference is that those yipyos are just like you - believers in magic and rewards on the other side. You know, the very stuff you spew, the stuff that gives them very little reason to value life _here_ very much. > The only option is to destroy the nuclear facilities in Iran > before (not after) they start producing dozens of nuclear weapons per > year. Read this report: And there you go; let's go in, guns blazing. Your respect for life shows its colors - pretty much the same as theirs. Strike first, strike fast. Kill 'em now while we have a chance. > Please answer this question: Do you want to allow a religious nut case > to have total control over dozens of nuclear tipped missiles? You mean like Bush? Oh, wait. No, you're right, we don't. So your question, really, is do we want a religious nut case of the "wrong" religion to have control? No, actually, we don't, but the problem is, they're _all_ the wrong religion. This week, it's the Islamics getting the bad rap. For the last 20 centuries or so, it's been the Christians doing most of it. I don't see how that argues that _your_ brand of religious nut job is any better than their brand, and frankly, none of them should have such power. Still, you don't seem all that upset that the US has nukes, and a religious nut case at the helm. Why is that? Oh, right, because it doesn't actually matter that he's a religious nut case, what matters is that he's a religious nut case of the same religion as you. > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml > > Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader You mean like Bush's "Faith-based" initiative? Yes, well. -- Republicans: Keeping our promises to the rich. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:38:05 -0800, Jason wrote: > RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL Bush says we should start a war in Iraq! For no justifiable reason! Which we can't get out of! Let's go kick some heathen butt! Yup, when religious loonies are in charge, you get problems. Which isn't to say atheists in charge wouldn't have problems, either, but at least they're not living an entire life of delusions of magic and pixies and muddleheaded nonsense - nonsense which often induces horrific crimes in its name. I'm sure you had a point, but other than demonstrating that religion should not be allowed in office - which we're happy to agree with - the point isn't clear. Oh, you mean it's okay if religion is in office as long as it's your religion, just not if it's the other guy's religion? Nah, can't be. From the outside, they're about equally meaningless - and about equally dangerous. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:50:13 -0800, Jason wrote: > No--I was letting you know my opinion related to the location of heaven. I > believe heaven is located in another dimension. I plan to go to heaven > when I die a physical death. It's a real place. So is Never Never Land. Know how I know? I read it in a book. You know, the very same reason you "know" heaven is a real place. Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 In article <56jlv4-ol7.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:34:44 -0800, Jason wrote: > > >> You do know that the US fought Mexicans (christians), Germans > >> (christians), each other (christians), Spain (christians), and the > >> english (christians). That's just the what I could pull out of my head > >> quickly about the USA. The list goes on and on, no jews, muslims, > >> shintos, buddists, or the like required. Do you REALLY want to keep > >> going there? > > > > The major difference is that nuclear weapons were not used in any of > > those wars. > > Were they available then? As far as I'm aware they weren't. Other > weapons - guns, bombs, knives, you name it - were available, and were > used. Thus we know they used the available weaponry, and we have no > reason to think they wouldn't have resorted to other weapons if pressed, > now do we? Thus their not using nukes in those wars is pretty much > irrelevant. > > > If Iran starts an assembly line for nuclear weapons, > > millions of people in various cities will be killed. More people will > > die in one year than died in all of those wars that you mentioned in > > your post. > > Last I checked, it wasn't Iran that was the problem, any more than it's > the US that's the problem. In the US it's more generally a pack of > psychotic yipyos who get in power that are the problem; in Iran, much the > same, the only difference is that those yipyos are just like you - > believers in magic and rewards on the other side. You know, the very > stuff you spew, the stuff that gives them very little reason to value life > _here_ very much. > > > The only option is to destroy the nuclear facilities in Iran > > before (not after) they start producing dozens of nuclear weapons per > > year. Read this report: > > And there you go; let's go in, guns blazing. Your respect for life shows > its colors - pretty much the same as theirs. Strike first, strike fast. > Kill 'em now while we have a chance. > > > Please answer this question: Do you want to allow a religious nut case > > to have total control over dozens of nuclear tipped missiles? > > You mean like Bush? Oh, wait. No, you're right, we don't. So your > question, really, is do we want a religious nut case of the "wrong" > religion to have control? No, actually, we don't, but the problem is, > they're _all_ the wrong religion. > > This week, it's the Islamics getting the bad rap. For the last 20 > centuries or so, it's been the Christians doing most of it. I don't see > how that argues that _your_ brand of religious nut job is any better than > their brand, and frankly, none of them should have such power. Still, you > don't seem all that upset that the US has nukes, and a religious nut case > at the helm. Why is that? Oh, right, because it doesn't actually matter > that he's a religious nut case, what matters is that he's a religious nut > case of the same religion as you. > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml > > > > Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader > > You mean like Bush's "Faith-based" initiative? Yes, well. Perhaps you will wake up from your dream world after Iran fires a nuclear tipped missile at Israel. You must have sleeped thru 9/11. Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 In article <90rfi3l7jl2oa0qfoj163nmbgncb526dsq@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:44:44 -0800, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3010071844440001@66-53-209-232.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >In article <ffefi3dsl0hf86oit7pdfi69gg70762j4b@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:43:23 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2910072143230001@67-150-124-88.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >> >In article <fg62fr$gno$03$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >> ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> > In article <MPG.219025105eb247cc98a280@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > >> >> > Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> In article > ><Jason-2910071153480001@67-150-122-25.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com says... > >> >> >>> In article <MPG.218ffb1a6f2034e298a27d@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > >> >> >>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>> In article > ><Jason-2910071111320001@67-150-122-25.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, > >> >> >>>> Jason@nospam.com says... > >> >> >>>>> In article <5omerlFnoteuU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> >> >>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> snipo > >> >> >>>>>>> A million years from now--you may be saying over and over and over > >> >> >>> again: > >> >> >>>>>>> I was warned about hell and I failed to do anything about it. > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> I was warned about hell and I failed to do anything about it. > >> >> >>>>>> The really sad thing is that I think you get off on this idea. > >> >> >>>>> That's not true. It would be great if everyone went to heaven. > >The world > >> >> >>>>> would be a much better place if everyone in the world was a > >> >> > Christian. It > >> >> >>>>> would end all wars. The money that is spent on wars and weapons > >could be > >> >> >>>>> spent to feed all of the hungry people in the world such as in the > >> >> > Sudan. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>> I guess all those killed in North Ireland don't count, huh? > >> >> >>>> If you REALLY believe that would end all wars, you are more > >delusional > >> >> >>>> than I thought. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Jim > >> >> >>> Good point. However, I would hope that the Christians involved in those > >> >> >>> sorts of wars (like in Ireland) would stop those wars. I have not heard > >> >> >>> much about the the war between Christians in Ireland in recent years. > >> >> >>> Perhaps that war has come to an end--at least I hope so. The > >biggest fear > >> >> >>> is Muslims since they have a goal of taking over the world. They > >will even > >> >> >>> use nukes to do it. The president of Iran has stated that he wants to > >> >> >>> "wipe off Israel from the map of the world." > >> >> >>> After he has finishes work on creating nuclear weapons--he will > >fire one > >> >> >>> or more nuclear tipped missles at Israel. His next target will > >probably be > >> >> >>> America. It would be easy to smuggle a nuclear bomb into America since > >> >> >>> tractor trailers come into America each day from Mexico. Various border > >> >> >>> guards have been fired for getting paid great amounts of money from > >> >> >>> Mexican cocaine dealers. Those sorts of border guards would love > >to take a > >> >> >>> million dollar payment to allow a tractor trailer loaded with a nuclear > >> >> >>> bomb to travel across the the Mexican border. I am glad I don't > >live in a > >> >> >>> large city. Of course, lots of liberal democrats in Congress > >don't want to > >> >> >>> allow Bush to destroy the nuclear facilities in Iran with bunker buster > >> >> >>> bombs. Many people in this newsgroup also don't want Bush to attack the > >> >> >>> nuclear facilities in Iran. > >> >> >>> Jason > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> Just look through history. > >> >> >> There has been just as much in fighting among christians as has been > >> >> >> within the different muslim subgroups. You act as if being a christian > >> >> >> instantly fixes all wrongs. I still can't believe that you have > >> >> >> ACTUALLY read your bible. It is filled with violence, hatred, and > >> >> >> intolerance. > >> >> >> Would YOU sentence a newborn baby to death because of the actions of > >> >> >> its' father or mother? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Jim > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > no--as you probably know--Christians don't follow all of the laws in the > >> >> > Old Testament. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Yes. That is called "cherry picking" > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Tokay > >> > > >> >The 10 commandments are the only laws from the Old Testament that most > >> >Christians pay any attention to. Most of those laws are unrelated to life > >> >in America. For example, many of the laws are related to animals. Imagine > >> >the trouble that Christians could get into if we stoned someone to death > >> >for committing adultery. > >> > > >> They give lip service to them. > >> > >> They demonstrate by their behavior that things are more than God to > >> them. > >> > >> They don't follow the Sabbath Day. > >> > >> They rarely honor their parents and have no idea how to generalize it. > >> > >> They covet. > >> > >> The worship of the ten commandments, as done in the United States is > >> forbidden in the ten commandments. > > > >I don't know anyone that worships the ten commandments. > > Let's start with the High Priest of Ten Commandment worship: Roy Moore, > the former chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court who lost his job > because he brought the object of his worship into his place of work > illegally. Then we'll point to every single jerk who thinks we need a > ten commandments plaque in public buildings. They too are worshipping a > graven image. I disagree. Roy Mooore worships God. Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 In article <26rfi3tjn7usqo3v5bs8a0ot7o8el2m0ir@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:43:00 -0800, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3010071843010001@66-53-209-232.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >In article <fg8e1d$i13$02$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > In article <5ooq5lFnlvkbU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > >> >> > >> >> snip] > >> >>> no--as you probably know--Christians don't follow all of the laws in the > >> >>> Old Testament. > >> >> Thank goodness for that. > >> >> > >> >> BTW, if all the world was christian, what would be your plans for > >stopping > >> >> the different sects of christianity from making war upon each other? > >> > > >> > There may be some wars but nothing like the wars that envolve the use of > >> > nuclear weapons. > >> > >> Holy cow. You SHOULD read some history. > >> > >> Iran is presently making nuclear materials and once they > >> > start making several nuclear weapons per year > >> > >> While as far as my opinion goes, this basket case might do that, this > >> point is speculative. You can't act on a "might do". Otherwise, germany > >> might be next. We don't like the USA. We did, but we learned otherwise. > >> > >> --not a single large city in > >> > the world is safe to live in. It would be very easy to smuggle a nuclear > >> > weapon into America and even easier to smuggle a nuclear weapon into > >> > England or France. > >> > >> Probably. But why do that? > >> > >> > >> Tokay > > > >Iran considers Israel and America to be their enemies. They have been at > >war with America and Israel for the last 10 or more years. > > > You are completely uninformed. You are a credulous fool who will believe > any lie that someone tells him, if the person lying to him tells him > that he is a Christian. > > Aside from the fact that the United States has overthrown its > government, forced a corrupt king upon them, used Iraq to fight them for > years, and tried to freeze their international assets, why would Iran be > upset with the United States? > > We have not been at war with Iran for the past decade. We have had > serious problems that have never quite amounted to war ever since the > Shah's overthrow almost three decades ago. How many times has Iran attacked America? Hints: hostage crisis (1979) Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 In article <rerfi3t5pv3k2qhdbm3al2lf3euv2qmt0k@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:40:45 -0800, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3010071840450001@66-53-209-232.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >In article <b2ffi3977f2ct8n01jdcgsribsqs85un4q@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:46:08 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-3010071246080001@66-53-215-221.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >> >In article <5ooq5lFnlvkbU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > >> >> > >> >> snip] > >> >> > > >> >> > no--as you probably know--Christians don't follow all of the laws in the > >> >> > Old Testament. > >> >> > >> >> Thank goodness for that. > >> >> > >> >> BTW, if all the world was christian, what would be your plans for > >stopping > >> >> the different sects of christianity from making war upon each other? > >> > > >> >There may be some wars but nothing like the wars that envolve the use of > >> >nuclear weapons. Iran is presently making nuclear materials and once they > >> >start making several nuclear weapons per year--not a single large city in > >> >the world is safe to live in. It would be very easy to smuggle a nuclear > >> >weapon into America and even easier to smuggle a nuclear weapon into > >> >England or France. > >> > > >> Thank you for showing us that you are stupid and bigoted. You are just > >> repeating the same old lies that the rabid right told us about the > >> Soviet Union and Red China. Notice that neither country ever attacked us > >> and there is no reason for us to think Iran will either. > > > >The president of Iran and one of the chief clerics in Iran both have > >stated that they want to use nuclear weapons against Israel. > > No, they did not. > > >As you know, > >we are obligated to protect Israel since they are an ally of America. http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm The president of Iran stated: "Israel must be wiped off from the map of the world." Needless to say, several nuclear missles fired at Israel would allow the president of Iran to do exactly what he said that he wants to do. RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 In article <81klv4-drh.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:38:05 -0800, Jason wrote: > > > RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL > > Bush says we should start a war in Iraq! For no justifiable reason! > Which we can't get out of! Let's go kick some heathen butt! > > Yup, when religious loonies are in charge, you get problems. Which isn't > to say atheists in charge wouldn't have problems, either, but at least > they're not living an entire life of delusions of magic and pixies and > muddleheaded nonsense - nonsense which often induces horrific crimes in > its name. > > I'm sure you had a point, but other than demonstrating that religion > should not be allowed in office - which we're happy to agree with - the > point isn't clear. > > Oh, you mean it's okay if religion is in office as long as it's your > religion, just not if it's the other guy's religion? Nah, can't be. From > the outside, they're about equally meaningless - and about equally > dangerous. America had no desire to take over the world. Otherwise, Americans would now have total control over Germany and Japan. The Muslims have made it clear that their end goal is to take over the world. The Muslims from the Middle East are presently taking over the Sudan. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:48:12 -0800, Jason wrote: >> So, why would you choose to let NYC be nuked? Are you really persuaded >> that NYC is a den of iniquity and that God wants it nuked? > > Of the options you provided, it was my favorite. Of course it would; you're a member of a death cult and this is the only option that allows the death of 8+ million people, rather than one or a few. Christianity at its very best, boys and girls. -- The inspiration in the Bible depends on the ignorance of the reader. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:55:50 -0800, Jason wrote: > Perhaps you will wake up from your dream world after Iran fires a nuclear > tipped missile at Israel. You must have sleeped thru 9/11. No, I didn't. Tell me, do the names Hiroshima and Nagasaki mean anything to you? I'll give you a hint: nukes were used. By Truman. You know his religion? Baptist. Little hint for you: that makes him a Christian. Meaning that a Christian leader effectively wiped two entire cities off the map. Oh, but wait. Let us not forget the rest. Last I checked, _every_ US president since then has been some flavour of Christian - and the number of such weapons has increased from a mere few back then to some 10,455 stockpiled non-strategic weapons. So, by your reasoning, the single biggest threat the planet faces is the God-befuddled minds of the American leadership, which has created an enormous nuclear weapons stockpile and is the only nation to have actually used the things in combat. So on the one hand we have fundy christofreaks sitting on a stockpile of thousands of weapons and a precedent for using them, but we're supposed to be all worried about someone else building one or two or a dozen, and the rationale is... er... oh, right, they're a fundy non-christofreak. You want to talk 9/11? Total dead, about 3,000. Hiroshima: estimated 140,000. Nagasaki: estimated 80,000. So you Christers have a death toll some 73 times larger than 9/11, and that's without examining the rest of your bloody and violent history. And you think those guys are the threat? -- “The only intelligent fundy...is an ex--fundy.” -- Steve Rose Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:16:50 -0800, Jason wrote: > America had no desire to take over the world. And? What, the Muslims do? Says who? As far as I can tell, they're just engaging in some inter-faith infighting - which again goes to show how dangerous and destructive religion in general is, Christianity not excluded. > now have total control over Germany and Japan. The Muslims have made it > clear that their end goal is to take over the world. Really? Which Muslims? I note the article you quoted seems to fail to indicate any such thing; just their desire to wipe out a competing religious group. Okay, granted, this makes _those_ Muslims (as opposed to Muslims in general) not nice people, but I don't see how it qualifies as world domination. Meanwhile, we're still left with the fact that the fundy Christofreaks running the US have both a massive stockpile of such weapons, and a precedent of being the only people to have actually used them in combat. We're supposed to worry about these guys with their hatful of nukes and no history of using them, but just accept it as okay that you jeezoids have thousands of such weapons and have used them . Not gonna happen. Just because it's your death cult doesn't make it any less a death cult. -- Hell, cars obviously “go against God’s design” -- he gave us legs. DW Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 On Oct 31, 5:36 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:55:50 -0800, Jason wrote: > > Perhaps you will wake up from your dream world after Iran fires a nuclear > > tipped missile at Israel. You must have sleeped thru 9/11. > > No, I didn't. Tell me, do the names Hiroshima and Nagasaki mean anything > to you? I'll give you a hint: nukes were used. By Truman. You know > his religion? Baptist. Little hint for you: that makes him a > Christian. Meaning that a Christian leader effectively wiped two entire > cities off the map. > > Oh, but wait. Let us not forget the rest. Last I checked, _every_ US > president since then has been some flavour of Christian - and the number > of such weapons has increased from a mere few back then to some 10,455 > stockpiled non-strategic weapons. > > So, by your reasoning, the single biggest threat the planet faces is the > God-befuddled minds of the American leadership, which has created an > enormous nuclear weapons stockpile and is the only nation to have > actually used the things in combat. > > So on the one hand we have fundy christofreaks sitting on a stockpile of > thousands of weapons and a precedent for using them, but we're supposed > to be all worried about someone else building one or two or a dozen, and > the rationale is... er... oh, right, they're a fundy non-christofreak. > > You want to talk 9/11? Total dead, about 3,000. Hiroshima: estimated > 140,000. Nagasaki: estimated 80,000. So you Christers have a death toll > some 73 times larger than 9/11, and that's without examining the rest of > your bloody and violent history. > > And you think those guys are the threat? > > -- > "The only intelligent fundy...is an ex--fundy." -- Steve Rose You have provided some very basis of argument to Birdbrain Jason. However, I think he is so ignorant and christian-minded as to not accepting this reality or refute. In short, he is not a sensible person, just a terrible oldish loon and a hypocrite. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:00:34 -0800, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3110070000350001@66-53-216-130.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >In article <90rfi3l7jl2oa0qfoj163nmbgncb526dsq@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:44:44 -0800, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3010071844440001@66-53-209-232.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: .... >> >I don't know anyone that worships the ten commandments. >> >> Let's start with the High Priest of Ten Commandment worship: Roy Moore, >> the former chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court who lost his job >> because he brought the object of his worship into his place of work >> illegally. Then we'll point to every single jerk who thinks we need a >> ten commandments plaque in public buildings. They too are worshipping a >> graven image. > >I disagree. Roy Mooore worships God. You would say that, but that won't make it true. His behavior shows that he worships a rock with some rules on it that he doesn't even follow. Once again, your opinion is informed more by wishful thinking than reality. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:08:54 -0800, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3110070008540001@66-53-216-130.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >In article <26rfi3tjn7usqo3v5bs8a0ot7o8el2m0ir@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:43:00 -0800, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3010071843010001@66-53-209-232.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >In article <fg8e1d$i13$02$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <5ooq5lFnlvkbU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> snip] >> >> >>> no--as you probably know--Christians don't follow all of the laws >in the >> >> >>> Old Testament. >> >> >> Thank goodness for that. >> >> >> >> >> >> BTW, if all the world was christian, what would be your plans for >> >stopping >> >> >> the different sects of christianity from making war upon each other? >> >> > >> >> > There may be some wars but nothing like the wars that envolve the use of >> >> > nuclear weapons. >> >> >> >> Holy cow. You SHOULD read some history. >> >> >> >> Iran is presently making nuclear materials and once they >> >> > start making several nuclear weapons per year >> >> >> >> While as far as my opinion goes, this basket case might do that, this >> >> point is speculative. You can't act on a "might do". Otherwise, germany >> >> might be next. We don't like the USA. We did, but we learned otherwise. >> >> >> >> --not a single large city in >> >> > the world is safe to live in. It would be very easy to smuggle a nuclear >> >> > weapon into America and even easier to smuggle a nuclear weapon into >> >> > England or France. >> >> >> >> Probably. But why do that? >> >> >> >> >> >> Tokay >> > >> >Iran considers Israel and America to be their enemies. They have been at >> >war with America and Israel for the last 10 or more years. >> > >> You are completely uninformed. You are a credulous fool who will believe >> any lie that someone tells him, if the person lying to him tells him >> that he is a Christian. >> >> Aside from the fact that the United States has overthrown its >> government, forced a corrupt king upon them, used Iraq to fight them for >> years, and tried to freeze their international assets, why would Iran be >> upset with the United States? >> >> We have not been at war with Iran for the past decade. We have had >> serious problems that have never quite amounted to war ever since the >> Shah's overthrow almost three decades ago. > >How many times has Iran attacked America? >Hints: >hostage crisis (1979) > You said _falsely_ that Iran has been at war with America for the last 10 or more years. You were wrong. The hostage crisis was settled, to Ronald Reagan's benefit. There was no war. Stop lying. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:14:12 -0800, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3110070014130001@66-53-216-130.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >In article <rerfi3t5pv3k2qhdbm3al2lf3euv2qmt0k@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:40:45 -0800, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3010071840450001@66-53-209-232.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >In article <b2ffi3977f2ct8n01jdcgsribsqs85un4q@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:46:08 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-3010071246080001@66-53-215-221.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >> >In article <5ooq5lFnlvkbU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> snip] >> >> >> > >> >> >> > no--as you probably know--Christians don't follow all of the >laws in the >> >> >> > Old Testament. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank goodness for that. >> >> >> >> >> >> BTW, if all the world was christian, what would be your plans for >> >stopping >> >> >> the different sects of christianity from making war upon each other? >> >> > >> >> >There may be some wars but nothing like the wars that envolve the use of >> >> >nuclear weapons. Iran is presently making nuclear materials and once they >> >> >start making several nuclear weapons per year--not a single large city in >> >> >the world is safe to live in. It would be very easy to smuggle a nuclear >> >> >weapon into America and even easier to smuggle a nuclear weapon into >> >> >England or France. >> >> > >> >> Thank you for showing us that you are stupid and bigoted. You are just >> >> repeating the same old lies that the rabid right told us about the >> >> Soviet Union and Red China. Notice that neither country ever attacked us >> >> and there is no reason for us to think Iran will either. >> > >> >The president of Iran and one of the chief clerics in Iran both have >> >stated that they want to use nuclear weapons against Israel. >> >> No, they did not. >> >> >As you know, >> >we are obligated to protect Israel since they are an ally of America. > >http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm > >The president of Iran stated: "Israel must be wiped off from the map of >the world." Needless to say, several nuclear missles fired at Israel >would allow the president of Iran to do exactly what he said that he wants >to do. Since he strongly supports the Palestinians, maybe you are intentionally misrepresenting what he means by this. He wants the area to become Palestine. Nuclear weapons would destroy Palestinians. >RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL > >TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fg7drc$dk7$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> Yes, some denominations pay attention to various laws and scriptures in >>> the Old Testament. I have read the Old Testament and enjoyed the stories >>> but did not enjoy reading the longs lists of laws that made a lot of sense >>> in those days but don't make much sense today. Christians pay attention to >>> the 10 commandments since they came directly from God. Those other laws >>> were (in my opinion) written by men. >> You need to re-read them. The book of Leviticus starts out: >> >> Leviticus 1 >> The Burnt Offering >> 1 The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting. >> He said, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any of you >> brings an offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from >> either the herd or the flock. >> >> And then it goes on outlining law after law after law. Let's re-read >> that again. "The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of >> Meeting. He said, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them..." The >> LORD called to Moses. Moses didn't sit down and say "Hmm, I'll make up >> some laws." It says the Lord told him this specifically and told him to >> pass it along to the Israelites. >> >> Nice try, however. > > Those laws were for those people--not the people that are alive today. If > you read those laws, you will realize that I am correct. I read all of > those laws. Once again you fail to explain why those laws are "for those people--not the people that are alive today" and why the 10 commandments are not "for those people--not the people that are alive today." Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 Tokay Pino Gris wrote: > There are some quite similar questions in a test that was set up to > determine whether people react "morally" regardless of religion. > > Let's see if I can get them together. > > Scenario A: > > Train roll towards a track switch. If you do nothing, five people tied > to the tracks will die. If you flip the switch, one will die, standing > on the alternate track (not tied to it, but can't evade). > > IIRC over 95% decided to throw the switch. In this case, doing nothing doesn't involve as much harm as it did in my scenerio. I was trying to give Jason a choice between an evil and a really BAD, super BIG evil. > Scenario B: > > Train rolls towards five people tied to the tracks. You stand on a > bridge and there is a very fat guy just sitting there. You could stop > the train if you push the fat guy off the bridge. > > The result was not so clear, but still (IIRC) over 80% decided NOT to > throw him off. Yeah, Jason tried squirming out of this one by saying "but I don't know for sure that pushing the fat guy off would work" and "the fat guy might have family that would also be affected", etc. > > (I think the problems/questions posed get more complicated and more > difficult to answer) > > So, where is the difference? Head count is the same. > > Many theories about that, but mostly it is said that the man in scenario > A is "collateral damage" and the fat guy in scenario B is a complete > innocent bystander. > > > (I'd have to look that up. It was in Dawkins book, I think, "The God > Delusion", at least it was explained there. An explanation why morals > are morals and that they do not derive from a book) > > So, that kid those terrorists want dead is in my eyes the innocent > bystander while the kids in the sub are "collateral". Yes, there is that point as well. > Plus the point that these are terrorists. You can't negotiate with > terrorists. Or blackmailers. Oh, you can, of course, but imagine what > would happen afterwards? How soon will the next terrorist group kidnap > more kids to get their goals? Maybe they would not want ONE kid to be > dead but a thousand? All firstborns of egypt? > > Where to draw the line? How much are you willing to give those > terrorists? One kid? Two? Ten? A hundred? > > Would you do a head count? "If you have five kids kidnapped, I am > willing to kill four?" > > Well. I wouldn't. One is one to many. Very sad about the kidnapped. Very > very sad indeed. But in the long run, this works out. It is not nice, it > is not a happy decision. It is not an easy decision. But make it you > must and I think there is really not much of a choice. I have no problems with your decision and maybe I would do the same myself if it really happened. Basically, there's no "right" or "wrong" answer. But Jason doesn't have CONSISTENT answers and that's what I was trying to illustrate. Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fg7db2$d3d$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> The 10 commandments are the only laws from the Old Testament that most >>> Christians pay any attention to. Most of those laws are unrelated to life >>> in America. For example, many of the laws are related to animals. Imagine >>> the trouble that Christians could get into if we stoned someone to death >>> for committing adultery. >> Ok, Jason, let's see how much attention you pay to the 10 commandments >> (and possibly get you to finally understand that there is no "one right >> answer" in all circumstances.) >> >> There is a religious group (doesn't matter who other than they aren't >> xians) who have become convinced that a 2 year old living in NY is the >> "antichrist" of their religion. They are desperate to kill this child or >> have it killed. They don't care about what penalty they'd pay and, other >> than this, they are a very peaceful group. They have repeatly tried, at >> great expense of money and life, to kill this child. >> >> They have taken control of a nuclear sub and have several children as >> hostages in the sub. The sub is in 300' of water off the coast of NY. >> They know the launch codes for the nukes. There is no way possible to >> get the children out of the sub and dropping depth charges will kill all >> on board. You are in charge of the naval ships that could drop such charges. >> >> They have sent a demand to you: Personally kill the child on live TV by >> 5:00pm, at which time we will surface the sub and surrender, or we >> launch a nuke on NYC which will kill the child and then we will surface >> and surrender. Based on your knowledge of the religion, etc. you know >> that they will keep their word on the surrender. >> >> Now your only options are: >> >> 1: Kill the child yourself. >> >> 2: Drop depth charges on the sub, killing them but also killing several >> children on board. >> >> 3: Do nothing and let them nuke NYC, thus killing the child as well as >> many others. >> >> NO other options (such as "we won't vote at all and just pray that a >> rescue ship comes by and gets us before we all die of thirst." or "I'll >> wait to see if I can get a clear shot.") are available. >> >> What are you going to do? >> >> Personally, I'd kill the child. I wouldn't be happy at all about it and >> would probably need therapy for the rest of my life, but I'd see no >> other choice. >> >> Occasionally, you have no other choice but to kill an innocent person. > > I would do nothing. So you would allow millions of people to die because you're too scared to do anything. But yet you'd take deliberate action and kill thousands of innocents in Iran by bombing them even when there's not as imminent of a threat to Israel. How hypocritical of you. Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <MPG.21917052cf64970d98a28f@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > >> In article <Jason-3010071332070001@67-150-126-93.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >> Jason@nospam.com says... >>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to >>> be used for peaceful purposes--I have land (located under the ocean) that >>> I would like to sell you. >>> >> I don't think ANY religous fanatics should have access to nukes. >> Muslims, christians, jews, or otherwise. >> It worries me that a bunch of wackos that think there is a better place >> on the other side just waiting for them has that kind of power. >> "Your" people (christians) are just as war like as any other groups of >> zealots. >> You do know that the US fought Mexicans (christians), Germans >> (christians), each other (christians), Spain (christians), and the >> english (christians). That's just the what I could pull out of my head >> quickly about the USA. The list goes on and on, no jews, muslims, >> shintos, buddists, or the like required. Do you REALLY want to keep >> going there? >> >> Jim > > The major difference is that nuclear weapons were not used in any of those > wars. No, we (christians) just used them in the war against Japan (nonchristians.) Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 James Beck wrote: > Time isn't REALLY a dimension. > Not a spatial one, like you guys are referring to. > Calling it the 4th dimension was just a mental crutch to make things > easier to explain. Time IS a dimension that is indistinguishable, in most, if not all, ways, from the other 3. There's no "mental crutch" here. Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 655321 wrote: > In article > <Jason-3010071238160001@66-53-215-221.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> I was stating my opinion. > > Did you wipe your ass after doing that? > Where do you think his opinion came FROM? He wiped his ass, scanned and OCR'ed it and posted it on usenet. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-3010071233260001@66-53-215-221.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... > In article <5ooqf6Fnh429U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2910071114400001@67-150-122-25.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... >> > In article <5omfbiFnmodfU2@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> >> >> >> snip >> >> > >> >> > There is a heaven and there is a hell. >> >> >> >> Then prove it. >> > >> > Prove that there was a primordial pond. Tell me the exact location of >> > the >> > primordial pond. >> >> Since I never claimed there was a primordial pond, I don't have to prove >> anything. >> >> YOU made the assertion about heaven and hell. YOU prove it. > > The location: another dimension Uh huh. Prove it. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-3010071234070001@66-53-215-221.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... > In article <5ooqgmFnnh1aU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> >> snip >> >> > If you can't tell me the location of the primordial pond, don't expect >> > me >> > to tell you the location of heaven. >> >> Jason, you can't tell us the location of heaven because you know it >> doesn't >> exist. Just admit it. > > location: another dimension Prove it. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-3010071902320001@66-53-209-232.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... > In article <TJ-dnd7YzYABNbranZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo > Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >> > location: another dimension >> >> Which one? >> What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis? >> How did you come up with it? >> When will you be publishing it in a scientific journal? >> What will you do with the money from the Nobel prize for physics? > > I googled "dimension" and read an article about the fourth and fift > dimension. I don't know which dimension that heaven is located. Then how do you know it's in another dimension at all? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> snip> > No--I was letting you know my opinion related to the location of heaven. Thank you for admitting that you don't really know where it is - You're just guessing. I > believe heaven is located in another dimension. I plan to go to heaven > when I die a physical death. It's a real place. If it's a real place, then prove it. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 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.