Re: Would Jesus want to convert Jews?
saint...@hotmail.com
> In article <KUpXj.1334$qH4....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, cactus says...
>
> >Emma wrote:
> >> In article <7xnXj.290$Q57....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>, cactus says...
> >>> Emma wrote:
> >>>>>> That is dreadfully offensive. You alternate between being
> >>>>>> very nice and tolerant, and very unkind and intolerant.
> >>>>>> Christianity doesn't make me mentally impaired.
> >>>>> Just because I think that secular societies can accomplish more than
> >>>>> faith based ones?
> >>>> No, because you compare Christianity to mental illness.
> >>> NO I DIDN'T. NO I DIDN'T. NO I DIDN'T.
>
> >> Yes, you did.
>
> >> Your example for comparison was a mental illness.
> >> It's there in the thread. It's impossible to deny.
>
> >You don't seem to get it. My point was that Europe would be much farther
> >along had it been secular during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. There
> >would have been fewer wars, more respect for Galileo and IMO much more
> >progress than was made during those times.
>
> Well since the Enlightenment we have had wars and
> revolutions, two world wars and the Cold War.
>
> No doubt you will somehow still blame all of that on
> religion though.
>
> >> I don't expect you to respond to evangelists
> >> by teaching your children that Christianity is
> >> similar to a mental illness.
>
> >I didn't. I taught them that Christianity was not our religion, and I
> >gave them a vibrant religion and wonderful community. They are at home
> >in it, and that's all I could do.
>
> Well I'm confused. Why give your children religious
> teaching if you think it causes wars and inhibits
> progress?
>
> >>>> I asked you if Christianity is better than
> >>>> religions that sacrifice humans.
> >>>> Yet you can't even bring yourself to answer
> >>>> "Yes" to that question.
>
> >>> With rare exceptions I will not answer that in the affirmative.
>
> >> You will not say "Yes" to that question above??
> >> So Christianity is no better than religions that
> >> practice human sacrifice??
>
> >Neither is Judaism by that standard. I abhor the practice, but who am I
> >to say the religion is wrong? I think the act is wrong and immoral. But
> >such religions will eventually die out in this modern world as their
> >practitioners end up in jail.
>
> That is a bizarre answer. You're not able to say
> that a murderous religion is wrong??
>
> >>> There
> >>> are many paths to the Godhead, of which ours are but two.
>
> >> I see. So human sacrifice is just another path to God?
>
> >It's not my path, and it's not your path. Who are we to say? What
> >gives you the certainty that it isn't?
>
> The belief that murder is wrong.
You are inconsistent and willfully ignorant, in the light of the
following:
New Testament
Mark 3:1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man
there which had a withered hand.
3:2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath
day; that they might accuse him.
3:3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand
forth.
3:4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath
days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their
peace.
3:5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being
grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man,
Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was
restored whole as the other.
Old Testament
Numbers 15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the
wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses
and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it had not been declared what
should be done to him.
35 And the LORD said unto Moses: ‘The man shall surely be put to
death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the
camp.’
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned
him with stones, and he died, as the LORD commanded Moses.
Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto
you; every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for
whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from
among his people.
Atrocious Acts of JHVH EL through Moses in the Old Testament
1. Offered an alliance of marriage with the royal family of the
Hivites, Jacob's sons convince the men of a town to get circumcised.
While the men are recovering, Jacob's sons slaughter them, loot the
town of goods and cattle, and carry off all the women and children as
slaves (Genesis 34:1-17, 24-31).
2. During the sojourn in Egypt: Despite Egyptian expertise in
medicine, Jewish midwives are better and achieve higher live birth
rate; Pharaoh fears demographic imbalance. Ignoring that females bear
babies, not males, Pharaoh orders midwives to kill newly born Hebrew
males (Exodus 1:15-22). Midwives disobey and make excuses to Pharaoh.
Decades later, LORD God strikes back, allowing Pharaoh to live but
killing all the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12-14). LORD God orders
that His justice be commemorated as "an ordinance for ever." This is
Passover.
3. Three thousand naked golden calf worshippers massacred. "Thus saith
the LORD God of Israel … slay every man his brother, and every man his
companion, and every man his neighbour." After the event, Moses
praises them for killing their own sons and brothers. (Exodus
32:25-29)
4. LORD God opens the earth and swallows up Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and
their tents, their wives, and little ones. Another 250 men burned to
death. All killed for accusing Moses of taking on airs and graces, and
raising questions about the quality of his leadership. (Numbers
16:1-3, 23-35)
5. LORD God sends a plague and kills 14,700 Israelites for blaming
Moses and Aaron for their handling of the Korah problem (Numbers
16:41-49). Plague halted by Aaron burning incense.
6. Balaam prophecies Hebrews will exterminate Moabites, children of
Sheth; Edom, Seir; Amalek, Kenites, Asshur, Eber (Numbers 24:17-25)
7. LORD God orders, through Moses, the extermination of the male
Midianites and their five kings. (Numbers 31:7-12). Why was
extermination ordered? After Hebrew men fornicated with Midianite
women, they caught a venereal disease and 24,000 died (Numbers 25).
The Midianites had sheltered Moses when he fled from Egypt, and they
gave Moses his first wife, Zipporah, who bore him his first son.
(Exodus 2:15-22) Were Moses' benefactors and in-laws among those
slaughtered?
8. The Midianite women and children are taken captive. Later, Moses
orders that they be murdered, but spares the little virgin girls so
they can be used as concubines (Numbers 31:13-18, 32-35). The Talmud
Sages use these verses to justify grown men having sexual intercourse
with little girls, three years old and younger. See Sex with Children
by Talmud Rules.
9. LORD God orders depopulation and destruction of civilization in the
Promised Land (Numbers 33:50-56); religious imagery and art work must
also be destroyed.
10. LORD God commands the Hebrews to "utterly destroy" the seven
nations that are in the Promised Land, "nor shew mercy unto them." In
addition, the Hebrews must "destroy" everything of those cultures
(Deuteronomy 7:1-6).
11. LORD God orders death for the prophet, the dreamer of dreams, and
he who performs miracles — if he tries to convert Hebrews to a new
faith (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).
12. LORD God orders every Israelite to kill "thy brother … or thy son,
or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as
thine own soul" if they stray from LORD God worship. "… Thine hand
shall be first upon him to put him to death …" (Deuteronomy 13:6-11).
Compare to ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the
Bill of Rights.
13. LORD God blames "children of Belial" for seducing Israelites to
other religions, and orders the massacre of seduced cities
(Deuteronomy 13:12-18).
14. LORD God orders extermination of the Amaleks (Deuteronomy
25:17-19); "… thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under
heaven; thou shalt not forget it."
15. LORD God orders Hebrews to exterminate the people of Jericho
(Joshua 6:1-2, 20-24); "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the
city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass,
with the edge of the sword."
16. LORD God orders extermination the inhabitants of Ai and their king
(Joshua 8:1-2, 18-29); Twelve thousand killed. "And Joshua burnt Ai,
and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day."
17. The Hebrews take captive the five Amorite kings, torture them, and
hang their bodies from trees. (Joshua 10:22-27)
18. LORD God orders the Hebrews to attack and utterly destroy a
multitude of cities, and kill all the inhabitants. (Joshua 10:28-43).
19. LORD God orders extermination of Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites,
Perizzites, Jebusites, Hivites, and their kings; horses crippled and
left to die (Joshua 11:1-9)
20. LORD God orders extermination of the Hazorites, the people of
Goshen and Baalgad, the Anakims (Joshua 11: 10-23); "And they smote
all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly
destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor
with fire."
21. LORD God gives military victory to Jephthah in return for the
promise of a human sacrifice. As fate would have it, the victim turns
out to be Jephthah's beloved daughter, his only child, but he performs
the sacrifice as promised. (Judges 11:30-40)
22. LORD God sends Hebrew tribe of Judah against the Hebrew tribe of
Benjamin; Judah loses 22,000 men (Judges 20:15-21)
23. LORD God sends the other Hebrew tribes against the Hebrew tribe of
Benjamin; The Hebrews lose 18,000 men (Judges 20:23-25)
24. LORD God continues to send the non-Benjamin Hebrews against the
Benjamin Hebrews: the remaining 25,000 Benjamin Hebrew men-at-arms are
killed, and all their elders, women, children, and cattle. Only 600
Benjamin Hebrews escape the slaughter. (Judges 20:28, 35-37, 46-48).
25. The Hebrews regret the slaughter of the Benjamites, and slaughter
the people of Jabesh Gilead because they did not participate: they
kill all the men, women, children, saving only 400 virgins for
surviving Benjamites (Judges 21:3-12). King James Version dares not
call it rape.
26. Not enough brides for Benjamites; Hebrews arrange for rape of the
Hebrew daughters of Shiloh (Judges 21:20-23).
27. LORD God AGAIN orders extermination of Amaleks. The incident to be
avenged is the Amalek attack on Moses' expedition, more than 250 years
earlier (1 Samuel 15:1-8, 32-33); "Now go and smite Amalek, and
utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both
man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
28. Though King Saul does LORD God's vengeance against the Amaleks, he
fails in the details. He has kept King Agag alive. LORD God is angry
and the prophet Samuel is angry. Samuel goes to the battlefield,
summons King Agag, and personally cuts him to pieces. (1 Samuel
15:9-11, 32-33)
29. David slaughters Philistines and mutilates the corpses, taking
foreskins as trophies (1 Samuel 18:25-27). This is love, not war —
David wanted the king's daughter in marriage.
30. David exterminates the Geshurites, the Gezrites, Amaleks,
Jerahmeelites, and Kenites (1 Samuel 27:8-11).
31. Characterized as a seasonal sport ("at the time that kings go out
to battle"), King David and Joab conquer the cities of the Ammon. King
David dismembers the captives with blunt instruments (1 Chronicles
20:1-3) "And he … cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and
with axes."
32. LORD God is displeased with the dynasty of Baasha. By way of the
Prophet Jehu, LORD God sends word that Baasha's dynasty will be
forcefully terminated, and his family will be eaten by dogs and birds.
(1 Kings 16:1-4)
33. King Asa, descendent of Baasha, is now king. While he is getting
drunk one day, Zimri, a leading military officer, attacks and kills
him. Zimri makes himself king and kills all the males in the family of
Baasha, doing the work of LORD God. His reign lasts seven days. (1
Kings 16:8-15)
34. The evil King Ahab is dead but the evil Queen Jezebel yet lives.
The new king, anointed of LORD God, arranges to have Queen Jezebel
thrown from a window, whereupon he drives his chariot over her. He
leaves the body there to be eaten by dogs. Only her skull, her feet,
and the palms of her hands remain. (2 Kings 9:30-37)
35. King Jehu requests the elders of Jezreel to kill all 70 of Ahab's
sons. It is done, and their heads are transported in baskets and left
outside the city gates. Then Jehu kills all that remain of the house
of Ahab in Jezreel: all Ahab's men, his kinfolk, and his priests,
until none remain. (2 Kings 10:1-11)
36. King Jehu encounters the late King Ahaziah's brothers on the road.
He captures them and kills them all in a pit because they are related
to the dead king. (2 Kings 10:12-14)
37. King Jehu goes to Samaria and kills all the allies of Ahab and his
dynasty, according to LORD God's instructions. Then he makes a public
announcement that he will be serving the idol Baal, and calls to him
all Baal's prophets and priests. Meanwhile, Jehu plans treachery, for
when all the servants of Baal are gathered, Jehu has them killed. (2
Kings 10:15-25)
38. Menahem butchers Tiphsahites and rips open stomachs of pregnant
women (2 Kings 15:14-17) Menahem is bad, but LORD God allows him to
rule for ten years without opening up the earth and swallowing him.
Ripping open the bellies of pregnant woman is not as offensive to LORD
God as murmuring against Moses. See Numbers 16:1-3, 23-35.
39. Mordecai, a prominent Jew in the capital city of the Persian
Empire, creates a bad situation by publicly insulting and challenging
Haman, Grand Vizier (Esther 3). Mordecai and his cousin, Queen Esther
secretly Jewish, win out in palace politics. As a result, the Jews of
the Empire slaughter more than 75,000 powerless Persians in a two-day
bloodbath (Esther 8). See The Essential Purim.
40. LORD God's prophecy: The people of Jerusalem will be massacred:
(Ezekiel 9:4-11) "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little
children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark;
and begin at my sanctuary."
Immortalist
> On May 17, 7:46 am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > Well since the Enlightenment we have had wars and
> > revolutions, two world wars and the Cold War.
>
> > No doubt you will somehow still blame all of that on
> > religion though.
>
> > >to say the religion is wrong? I think the act is wrong and immoral. But
> > >such religions will eventually die out in this modern world as their
> > >practitioners end up in jail.
>
> > That is a bizarre answer. You're not able to say
> > that a murderous religion is wrong??
>
> > >>> There
> > >>> are many paths to the Godhead, of which ours are but two.
>
> > >> I see. So human sacrifice is just another path to God?
>
> > >It's not my path, and it's not your path. Who are we to say? What
> > >gives you the certainty that it isn't?
>
> > The belief that murder is wrong.
>
> You are inconsistent and willfully ignorant, in the light of the
> following:
>
snipped examples
> New Testament
>
>
> Old Testament
>
More examples snipped
> Atrocious Acts of JHVH EL through Moses in the Old Testament
>
the environment that molded the human brain through natural selection
is drastically different than the world humans currently live in
In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a form of altruism in
which one organism provides a benefit to another in the expectation of
future reciprocation [a human impulse towards fairness may be an
instinctual bias]
Ostracism was a procedure ...where a prominent citizen could be
expelled & Shunning ...the act of deliberately avoiding association
with, and habitually keeping away from an individual or group... [may
both be instinctual biases in humans]
free riders are actors who consume more than their fair share of a
resource, or shoulder less than a fair share of the costs [may have
resulted in alignment of other human biases and nueral structures into
forms of punishment]
a universal moral grammar, built into the brains of all humans. The
grammar is a set of principles that operate on the basis of the causes
and consequences of action. Thus, in the same way that we are endowed
with a language faculty that consists of a universal toolkit for
building possible languages, we are also endowed with a moral faculty
that consists of a universal toolkit for building possible moral
systems.
hence it may be hypocrytical to point out some past application, but
it may be hypocrytical to point that out, I don't know...
The Savanna Principle is a theory about the evolutionary roots of the
human brain. ...it asserts that the environment that molded the human
brain through natural selection is drastically different than the
world humans currently live in. This disparity between what man was
designed to do and what he currently can do leads to a host of
societal difficulties, according to the theory. For example, ancestors
who craved sugary and fatty foods lived longer and were healthier than
those who didn't, in a time that such things were relatively scarce.
Today, the abundance of such temptations leads to obesity and heart
disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna_principle
Evolutionary Psychology strongly rejects the view of the human mind as
tabula rasa, and avers instead that it is content rich and biased. The
human brain, and all of its psychological mechanisms, are adapted to
the EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptedness) and are therefore
biased in favor of viewing and responding to the world as if it were
still the EEA. The psychological mechanisms we possess in our brain
today are still the same psychological mechanisms that we possessed in
the EEA, just as our hand and pancreas are still the same as they were
10 000 years ago. It is not impossible to overcome this bias through
conscious effort, but it is often difficult. This is why we still
respond to sweets and fats today as if we still lived in the EEA where
such high-calorie foods were rare and malnutrition was an imminent
problem for survival, and we have the strong urge to consume a large
quantity of sweets and fats (even though many of us can consciously
overcome the urge) (Barash 1982, pp. 144–147). It is my contention
that the human brain has unconscious difficulty comprehending and
dealing with entities and situations that did not exist in the EEA.
For instance, one of the entities that we know for sure did not exist
in the EEA is television. The fundamental principles of EP would
therefore imply that humans have difficulty recognizing and dealing
with TV. This indeed appears to be the case. People who watch certain
types of TV shows are more satisfied with their friendships, just like
they are if they have more friends or spend more time socializing with
them in real life. It appears that the human brain has difficulty
distinguishing between real friends and imaginary ones they see on TV,
because it did not exist in the EEA (Kanazawa, 2002). It is this
fundamental observation, that our brain and its psychological
mechanisms are strongly biased to view and respond to the environment
as if it were still the EEA, which leads to the Savanna Principle.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/pdf/MDE2004.pdf
Reciprocal altruism
In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a form of altruism in
which one organism provides a benefit to another in the expectation of
future reciprocation. This is equivalent to the Tit for tat strategy
in game theory. It would only be expected to evolve in the presence of
a mechanism to identify and punish "cheaters". An example of
reciprocal altruism is blood-sharing in the vampire bat, in which bats
feed regurgitated blood to those who have not collected much blood
themselves knowing that they themselves may someday benefit from this
same donation; cheaters are remembered by the colony and ousted from
this collaboration.
In a series of ground-breaking contributions to biology in the early
1970s Robert Trivers introduced the theories of reciprocal altruism
(1971), parental investment (1972), and parent-offspring conflict
(1974). Trivers' paper "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism" (1971)
elaborates the mathematics of reciprocal altruism and includes human
reciprocal altruism as one of the three examples used to illustrate
the model, arguing that "it can be shown that the details of the
psychological system that regulates this altruism can be explained by
this model." In particular, Trivers argues for the following
characteristics as functional processes subserving reciprocal
altruism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
(1) Ostracism was a procedure under the Athenian democracy where a
prominent citizen could be expelled from the city-state of Athens for
ten years. While some instances clearly expressed popular anger at the
victim, ostracism was often pre-emptive in character. It might be a
way of diffusing a major confrontation between rival politicians by
removing one of them from the scene, or of neutralising someone
thought to be a threat to the state, a possible tyrant. Crucially,
ostacism had no relation to the processes of justice. There was no
charge or defence, and the exile was not in fact a penalty. It was
simply a command from the Athenian people that one of their number be
gone for ten years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
(2) Shunning is the act of deliberately avoiding association with, and
habitually keeping away from an individual or group. It is a sanction
against association commonly associated with religious groups
following excommunication or dismembership. In some cases, the shunned
person or group is considered anathema, abominable, or spiritually
diseased by shunning group.
A distinct practice sometimes confused with shunning involves the
severing of ties between new members and those of their friends and
family who disapprove of the faith. The Church of Scientology coined
the word disconnection to refer to that practice.
Shunning aims to exclude, punish, and shame a member who commits acts
seen as harmful to the group, who violates the group's norms, or flees
the group. Usually, shunning is done after formal excommunication or
disfellowship and not before. Shunning is often intended to teach
obedience, discipline disobedience/nonconformance by the shunned and
to punish defiance from the shunned. Shunning can also be intended to
shame such members, to compel them back into conforming membership,
and to punish those who persist in violating the group's norms.
As the practice may destroy marriages, break up families, and separate
children from their parents (or vice versa), it is particularly
controversial. The effect of shunning can be very dramatic or even
devastating on the shunnee, as it can damage or destroy the shunned
member's closest familial, spousal, and social bonds. The extent to
which the shunned member's larger social rights in a society are
affected by such shunning can also make a dramatic difference in the
effect of shunning, beyond the aforementioned costs. In cases where a
group or religion is state-sanctioned, a key power, or in the
majority, a shunned former member may face especially severe social,
political, and/or financial costs. Some, especially researchers of
mind control, brainwashing and menticide groups, identify the practice
with "cult-like" or totalitarian behaviour.
Shunning contains aspects of what is known as relational aggression in
the psychological literature. When used by church members and member-
spouse parents against excommunicant parents it contains elements of
what pyschologists call parental alienation. Extreme shunning often
causes traumas to the shunned (and to their innocent dependents)
similar to what is studied in the psychology of torture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning
Free rider problem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In economics, collective bargaining, and political science, free
riders are actors who consume more than their fair share of a
resource, or shoulder less than a fair share of the costs of its
production. The free rider problem is the question of how to prevent
free riding from taking place, or at least limit its negative effects.
Because the notion of 'fairness' is controversial, free riding is
usually only considered to be an economic "problem" when it leads to
the non-production or under-production of a public good, and thus to
Pareto inefficiency, or when it leads to the excessive use of a common
property resource.
A common example of a free rider problem is defense spending: no
person can be excluded from being defended by a state's military
forces, and thus free riders may refuse or avoid paying for being
defended, even though they are still as well guarded as those who
contribute to the state's efforts. Therefore, it is usual for the
government to avoid relying on volunteer donations, using taxes and
conscription instead.
In the labor union context, a free rider is an employee who pays no
union dues or agency shop fees, but nonetheless receives the same
benefits of union representation as dues-payers. Under U.S. law,
unions owe a duty of fair representation to all workers they
represent, regardless of whether they pay dues. Some jurists,
including Antonin Scalia have questioned the fairness, if not the
legality, of this practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem
Application to evolutionary psychology
The "tragedy of the commons" features highly in the field of
evolutionary psychology, along with the closely linked "prisoner's
dilemma". Until quite recently, it was widely held that altruism could
not have evolved because the 'tragedy of the commons' would always
favour selfish individuals; whose genes for selfish behaviour would
therefore come to predominate. This contradicted observed reality, and
was therefore a significant conceptual problem. The problem was
eventually solved by models of possible mechanisms that can give rise
to 'Reciprocal altruism', leading to ideas like the 'Tit for tat' rule
(which states that it is beneficial to do onto others as they have
done onto you). This freed evolutionary theory from the limitations
imposed by the concept of 'Inclusive fitness', a previous explanation
for altruism, which proposed that we only help others to the extent
that by doing so we assist the survival of genes that they share with
us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of
right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible
principles of action. The theory posits a universal moral grammar,
built into the brains of all humans. The grammar is a set of
principles that operate on the basis of the causes and consequences of
action. Thus, in the same way that we are endowed with a language
faculty that consists of a universal toolkit for building possible
languages, we are also endowed with a moral faculty that consists of a
universal toolkit for building possible moral systems.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/marc-hauser-mor.html
Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal
Sense of Right and Wrong - by Marc Hauser
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703
How do humans develop their capacity to make moral decisions?
Do humans have a universal moral grammar, an instinctive, unconscious
tool kit for constructing moral systems.
For example, although we might not be able to articulate immediately
the moral principle underlying the ban on incest, our moral faculty
instinctually declares that incest is disgusting and thus
impermissible.
Humans have evolved a universal moral instinct, unconsciously
propelling us to deliver judgments of right and wrong independent of
gender, education, and religion. Experience tunes up our moral
actions, guiding what we do as opposed to how we deliver our moral
verdicts.
For hundreds of years, scholars have argued that moral judgments arise
from rational and voluntary deliberations about what ought to be. The
common belief today is that we reach moral decisions by consciously
reasoning from principled explanations of what society determines is
right or wrong. This perspective has generated the further belief that
our moral psychology is founded entirely on experience and education,
developing slowly and subject to considerable variation across
cultures.
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703/
The proposal, [that people are born with a moral grammar wired into
their neural circuits by evolution] if true, would have far-reaching
consequences. It implies that parents and teachers are not teaching
children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best,
giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are
not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of
instinctive moral behavior.
Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the
same moral judgments [&] the system that unconsciously generates moral
judgments is immune to religious doctrine.
The moral grammar operates in much the same way as the universal
grammar proposed by the linguist Noam Chomsky as the innate neural
machinery for language. The universal grammar is a system of rules for
generating syntax and vocabulary but does not specify any particular
language. That is supplied by the culture in which a child grows up.
The moral grammar too is a system for generating moral behavior and
not a list of specific rules. It constrains human behavior so tightly
that many rules are in fact the same or very similar in every society
-- do as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; don't
kill; avoid adultery and incest; don't cheat, steal or lie.
But it also allows for variations, since cultures can assign different
weights to the elements of the grammar's calculations. Thus one
society may ban abortion, another may see infanticide as a moral duty
in certain circumstances.
The moral grammar evolved because restraints on behavior are required
for social living and have been favored by natural selection because
of their survival value.
Social animals possess the rudiments of a moral system in that they
can recognize cheating or deviations from expected behavior. But they
generally lack the psychological mechanisms on which the pervasive
reciprocity of human society is based, like the ability to remember
bad behavior, quantify its costs, recall prior interactions with an
individual and punish offenders. Lions cooperate on the hunt, but
there is no punishment for laggards.
The moral grammar now universal among people presumably evolved to its
final shape during the hunter-gatherer phase of the human past, before
the dispersal from the ancestral homeland in northeast Africa some
50,000 years ago. This may be why events before our eyes carry far
greater moral weight than happenings far away since in those days one
never had to care about people remote from one's environment.
The moral grammar may have evolved through the evolutionary mechanism
known as group selection. A group bound by altruism toward its members
and rigorous discouragement of cheaters would be more likely to
prevail over a less cohesive society, so genes for moral grammar would
become more common.
http://scienceblogs.com/transcript/2006/10/the_moral_mind_ny_times_commen.php
...innate censors and motivators exist in the brain that deeply and
unconsciously affect our ethical premises; from these roots, morality
evolved as instinct. If that perception is correct, science may soon
be in a position to investigate the very origin and meaning of human
values, from which all ethical pronouncements and much of political
practice flow.
Philosophers themselves, most of whom lack an evolutionary
perspective, have not devoted much time to the problem. They examine
the precepts of ethical systems with reference to their consequences
and not their origins. Thus John Rawls opens his influential A Theory
of Justice (1971) with a proposition he regards as beyond dispute: "In
a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as
settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political
bargaining or to the calculus of social interests." Robert Nozick
begins Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) with an equally firm
proposition: "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person
or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong
and far-reaching are these rights they raise the question of what, if
anything, the state and its omcials.may do." These two premises are
somewhat different in content, and they lead to radically different
prescriptions. Rawls would allow rigid social control to secure as
close an approach as possible to the equal distribution of society's
rewards. Nozick sees the ideal society as one governed by a minimal
state, empowered only to protect its citizens from force and fraud,
and with unequal distribution of rewards wholly permissible. Rawls
rejects the meritocracy; Nozick accepts it as desirable except in
those cases where local communities voluntarily decide to experiment
with egalitarianism. Like everyone else, philosophers measure their
personal emotional responses to various alternatives as though
consulting a hidden oracle.
That oracle resides in the deep emotional centers of the brain, most
probably within the limbic system, a complex array of neurons and
hormone-secreting cells located just beneath the "thinking" portion of
the cerebral cortex. Human emotional responses and the more general
ethical practices based on them have been programmed to a substantial
degree by natural selection over thousands of generations. The
challenge to science is to measure the tightness of the constraints
caused by the programming, to find their source in the brain, and to
decode their significance through the reconstruction of the
evolutionary history of the mind. This enterprise will be the logical
complement of the continued study of cultural evolution.
Success will generate the second dilemma, which can be stated as
follows: Which of the censors and motivators should be obeyed and
which ones might better be curtailed or sublimated? These guides are
the very core of our humanity. They and not the belief in spiritual
apartness distinguish us from electronic computers. At some time in
the future we will have to decide how human we wish to remain-in this
ultimate, biological sense-because we must consciously choose among
the alternative emotional guides we have inherited. To chart our
destiny means that we must shift from automatic control based on our
biological properties to precise steering based on biological
knowledge.
Because the guides of human nature must be examined with a complicated
arrangement of mirrors, they are a deceptive subject, always the
philosopher's deadfall. The only way forward is to study human nature
as part of the natural sciences, in an attempt to integrate the
natural sciences with the social sciences and humanities. I can
conceive of no ideological or formalisric shortcut. Neurobiology
cannot be learned at the feer of a guru. The consequences of genetic
history cannot be chosen by legislatures. Above all, for our own
physical well-being if nothing else, ethical philosophy must not be
left in the hands of the merely wise. Although human progress can be
achieved by intuition and force of will, only hard-won empirical
knowledge of our biological nature will allow us to make optimum
choices among the competing criteria of progress.
On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/
saint...@hotmail.com
I see you demons just can't stand the light of day. LOL
Onoit
saint...@hotmail.com
> To himself?
Away from a God whose only virtue is that He doesn't exist. Such is
the JHVH EL of the Old Testament.
Darrell Stec
What is the JHVH EL? Are you mistakingly trying to prevent writing the
Tetragrammon, YHVH? If so, the injunction was against utter those sacred
constanants not writting them, and besides it ONLY applied to Hebrew, not
English, not Aramaic, nor Greek. And it definitely did not apply to the
name Jehovah with is a complete bastardization.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
saint...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> saint7pe...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On May 17, 1:43 pm, "Onoit" <on...@sno.tso> wrote:
> >> To himself?
>
> > Away from a God whose only virtue is that He doesn't exist. Such is
> > the JHVH EL of the Old Testament.
>
> What is the JHVH EL? Are you mistakingly trying to prevent writing the
> Tetragrammon, YHVH? If so, the injunction was against utter those sacred
> constanants not writting them, and besides it ONLY applied to Hebrew, not
> English, not Aramaic, nor Greek. And it definitely did not apply to the
> name Jehovah with is a complete bastardization.
>
> --
> Later,
>
> Webpage Sorceryhttp://webpagesorcery.com
> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
You got a bad case of the brainwashing rabbi syndrome. J is just
fine. It means Jod, dumbfuck. JHVH EL is the name of the demon who
hates mankind. If you are a rabbinical Jew, He is your God. JHVH EL
is translated as LORD God. The Hebrew letters are Jod He Vav He
(space) Aleph Lambda. That is the designation for the false God
throughout the Old Testament.
saint...@hotmail.com
> throughout the Old Testament.
See correction above Lambda -> Lamed. Confusion of tongues left over
from Genesis 11.
Darrell Stec
> On May 17, 4:38 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
> wrote:
>> saint7pe...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > On May 17, 1:43 pm, "Onoit" <on...@sno.tso> wrote:
>> >> To himself?
>>
>> > Away from a God whose only virtue is that He doesn't exist. Such is
>> > the JHVH EL of the Old Testament.
>>
>> What is the JHVH EL? Are you mistakingly trying to prevent writing the
>> Tetragrammon, YHVH? If so, the injunction was against utter those sacred
>> constanants not writting them, and besides it ONLY applied to Hebrew, not
>> English, not Aramaic, nor Greek. And it definitely did not apply to the
>> name Jehovah with is a complete bastardization.
>>
>> --
>> Later,
>> Darrell Stec dars...@neo.rr.com
>>
>> Webpage Sorceryhttp://webpagesorcery.com
>> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
>
> You got a bad case of the brainwashing rabbi syndrome. J is just
> fine. It means Jod, dumbfuck.
> JHVH EL is the name of the demon who
> hates mankind.
You are confused. El is the most high god. Jehovah is the misspelling of
those who pretend they they don't want to write the Tetragrammon. Jehovah
is the bastardization of the pious for Yahweh. Yahweh was one of the sons
of the high god, one of the Elohim, the council of gods. Like Satan he was
not a demon but rather a god.
> If you are a rabbinical Jew, He is your God. JHVH EL
> is translated as LORD God.
Lord would be Adonis.
> The Hebrew letters are Jod He Vav He
> (space) Aleph Lambda.
What space? Ancient Hebrew like ancient Greek had no spaces. Why are you
pretending to understand Hebrew?
> That is the designation for the false God
> throughout the Old Testament.
And in your confusion, what do you think was the name of the real god?
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
saint...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> saint7pe...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On May 17, 4:38 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
> > wrote:
> >> saint7pe...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > On May 17, 1:43 pm, "Onoit" <on...@sno.tso> wrote:
> >> >> To himself?
>
> >> > Away from a God whose only virtue is that He doesn't exist. Such is
> >> > the JHVH EL of the Old Testament.
>
> >> What is the JHVH EL? Are you mistakingly trying to prevent writing the
> >> Tetragrammon, YHVH? If so, the injunction was against utter those sacred
> >> constanants not writting them, and besides it ONLY applied to Hebrew, not
> >> English, not Aramaic, nor Greek. And it definitely did not apply to the
> >> name Jehovah with is a complete bastardization.
>
> >> --
> >> Later,
> >> Darrell Stec dars...@neo.rr.com
>
> >> Webpage Sorceryhttp://webpagesorcery.com
> >> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
>
> > You got a bad case of the brainwashing rabbi syndrome. J is just
> > fine. It means Jod, dumbfuck.
> > JHVH EL is the name of the demon who
> > hates mankind.
>
> You are confused. El is the most high god.
No, fuckface. El Elyon is the Most High God.
Jehovah is the misspelling of
> those who pretend they they don't want to write the Tetragrammon. Jehovah
> is the bastardization of the pious for Yahweh. Yahweh was one of the sons
> of the high god, one of the Elohim, the council of gods. Like Satan he was
> not a demon but rather a god.
That is your view. It is not mainstream nor is it correct occultly
speaking, but you ARE entitled to it. There may be some truth to your
view in the anthropological sense. However, there is nothing pious
about the JHVH EL of the Old Testament. BTW, the text actually reads
JHVH EL: Jod He Vav He (space) Aleph Lamed.
> > If you are a rabbinical Jew, He is your God. JHVH EL
> > is translated as LORD God.
>
> Lord would be Adonis.
Not in Judaism.
> > The Hebrew letters are Jod He Vav He
> > (space) Aleph Lambda.
>
> What space? Ancient Hebrew like ancient Greek had no spaces. Why are you
> pretending to understand Hebrew?
You are baloney. Of course there are spaces - just look at it! You
produce one version of the Torah where there are no spaces. I use the
JPS version, which most certainly has spaces in the Hebrew text.
> > That is the designation for the false God
> > throughout the Old Testament.
>
> And in your confusion, what do you think was the name of the real god?
I am not the one who is confused. JHVSA, Jod He Vav Shin Ayin, is
Jehoshua Moshiach, the Jewish name of Jesus. Jehoshua Moshiach is G-
D, Jesus is His Messiah. The correct substitute for JHVH EL is JHVSA
ALHJM, Jehoshua Elohim. This is only one way of seeing it, so don't
get your panties in a bunch. The occult doctrine is quite complex and
not for dolts. Once Jesus gets through transmuting the evil demon of
the Old Testament, JHVH EL will then and only then be a legitimate
name for God. Hint: It is almost finished and the Kingdom of G-D is
at hand.
Darrell Stec
El is his name. Elyon means "most high" an adjective or appellative. It is
added for emphasis. I doubt you even know how many times in scripture El
is mentioned without Elyon. Hint: it is easier to count the number of
times you see the two words together.
> Jehovah is the misspelling of
>> those who pretend they they don't want to write the Tetragrammon.
>> Jehovah is the bastardization of the pious for Yahweh. Yahweh was one of
>> the sons of the high god, one of the Elohim, the council of gods. Like
>> Satan he was not a demon but rather a god.
>
> That is your view. It is not mainstream nor is it correct occultly
> speaking, but you ARE entitled to it.
Actually you don't know what you are talking about. That is about as
conservative and mainstream as one can get. Where did you get your formal
education in theology, Hebrew, Greek and Latin?
> There may be some truth to your
> view in the anthropological sense. However, there is nothing pious
> about the JHVH EL of the Old Testament.
You misunderstood what I wrote. What I meant what those people ignorant of
scripture, i.e. you for instance, think you are not supposed to write
Yahweh or Jehovah so you bastardize the name because you are unaware that
the Tetragrammon only applies to the Hebrews and only in Hebrew.
> BTW, the text actually reads
> JHVH EL: Jod He Vav He (space) Aleph Lamed.
>
Sorry but it is YHVH no J in there.
>> > If you are a rabbinical Jew, He is your God. JHVH EL
>> > is translated as LORD God.
>>
>> Lord would be Adonis.
>
> Not in Judaism.
>
Of course in Judaism. That is why you misspell it Jehovah rather than
Yahweh. You screw up the vowels.
>> > The Hebrew letters are Jod He Vav He
>> > (space) Aleph Lambda.
>>
>> What space? Ancient Hebrew like ancient Greek had no spaces. Why are
>> you pretending to understand Hebrew?
>
> You are baloney. Of course there are spaces - just look at it! You
> produce one version of the Torah where there are no spaces. I use the
> JPS version, which most certainly has spaces in the Hebrew text.
>
JPS ancient Hebrew?????????? The damn thing is 20th century CE. Here are a
few examples of non modern Hebrew:
"It was written from right to left; the words contained no [written] vowels;
there were no intervening spaces between words, and no punctuation marks."
http://einhornpress.com/hebrew.aspx
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/6_04.html
How many more examples do you need?
>> > That is the designation for the false God
>> > throughout the Old Testament.
>>
>> And in your confusion, what do you think was the name of the real god?
>
> I am not the one who is confused. JHVSA, Jod He Vav Shin Ayin, is
> Jehoshua Moshiach, the Jewish name of Jesus.
Bullshit. There was never a Hebrew representation for the Iesous of the New
Testament which was the Greek form for our English Jesus. Christos is the
Greek for the the Hebrew messiah or oiled one of thing. But there has
never been any Hebrew Jehosua Moshiach in scripture. If you think there is
other than some back translating from the Greek, please point it out.
> Jehoshua Moshiach is G-
> D, Jesus is His Messiah. The correct substitute for JHVH EL is JHVSA
> ALHJM, Jehoshua Elohim. This is only one way of seeing it, so don't
> get your panties in a bunch. The occult doctrine
I speak only to Hebrew not some imaginary occult doctrine.
> is quite complex and
> not for dolts. Once Jesus gets through transmuting the evil demon of
> the Old Testament, JHVH EL will then and only then be a legitimate
> name for God. Hint: It is almost finished and the Kingdom of G-D is
> at hand.
>
What is G-D? Do you mean god? God is not a name and you don't have to
misspell it as it has nothing to do with the Tetragrammon. Are you one of
those Jews for Jesus or Messianic Christians pretending to actually have a
formal education in Hebrew and theology?
>> Later,
>> Darrell Stec dars...@neo.rr.com
>>
>> Webpage Sorceryhttp://webpagesorcery.com
>> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
saint...@hotmail.com
wrote:
bullshit.
Now I realize that you meant by Adonis, Adonai. You are way too dumb
for me to talk with. Plus you are obviously Jewish with a great big
axe to grind. Trying to have a discussion with you is like stepping
in dog shit. Therefore, fuck off and drop dead.
Richard Anacker
saint...@hotmail.com schrieb:
> bullshit.
of course, what else.
> Now I realize that you meant by Adonis, Adonai. You are way too dumb
> for me to talk with.
Because wise words like
> Trying to have a discussion with you is like stepping
> in dog shit. Therefore, fuck off and drop dead.
is the undeniable sign of a high intellect and superior knowledge.
I bet your whole family is very proud of you.
What a fucking moron...
--
"What did Evil Knievel want?"
"God sent him."
"On a fucking Suzuki?"
saint...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> saint7id...@hotmail.com schrieb:
How would a bag lady like yourself know about my supreme intellect?
Get some humility ... and modesty.
Richard Anacker
saint7...@hotmail.com schrieb:
> How would a bag lady like yourself know about my supreme intellect?
It is easy to know all about nothing. This was easy, spacehead.
get lost, loser
cindys
"Darrell Stec" <darrel...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:482fdec4$0$5131$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> >
> What is G-D? Do you mean god? God is not a name and you don't have to
> misspell it as it has nothing to do with the Tetragrammon. Are you one of
> those Jews for Jesus or Messianic Christians pretending to actually have a
> formal education in Hebrew and theology?
Neither. He's a foul-mouthed idiot with a severe mental derangement. Don't
waste your time with him.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
saint...@hotmail.com
> "Darrell Stec" <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
Nice rabbinical slander, shedevil.
saint...@hotmail.com
But actually thank you. He is definitely one of your kind, and I have
already told him I don't want to waste time with him (or you).
Mordecai
saint...@hotmail.com wrote:
Pardon oh messiah?
Which of your exalted personabges added in the false information here?
Was it JC or was he a bit busy for you now? He is rather busy or so you tell me.
Was it your G_d who gave this wrong information?
Was it your teacher on earth whom you are repeating which you quote?
I am curious oh messiah.
--
Mordecai!
When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is wrong,
and reality is Never wrong.
saint...@hotmail.com
spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote:
You are a devil, you old bag, Mordecai. Is that what you want to
hear? It is the truth. Rest at ease. You will be counted amongst
the wicked, and you will rot in hell together with them, forever and
ever. Have a nice life.
walksalone
Darrell Stec <darrel...@webpagesorcery.com>
news:482f89b4$0$31766$4c36...@roadrunner.com
utf-8 compliant news reader strongly suggested.
> saint...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> On May 17, 4:38Â pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
>> wrote:
>>> saint7pe...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> > On May 17, 1:43Â pm, "Onoit" <on...@sno.tso> wrote:
>>> >> To himself?
>>>
>>> > Away from a God whose only virtue is that He doesn't exist. Â Such
>>> > is the JHVH EL of the Old Testament.
>>>
>>> What is the JHVH EL? Â Are you mistakingly trying to prevent writing
>>> the Tetragrammon, YHVH? Â If so, the injunction was against utter
There is no yhwh él in the Hebrew Bible. There is no, to my less than
encyclopedic knowledge, yhvh.
Yahweh, is never directly associated with él, Who of course was the
original god of the region.
It is true that yahweh through his priesthood eventually subsumed all of
the other gods and the Canaanite/Judean people.
Among his various roles were
יהןה yahweh
יהןהעכאןח yahweh zabaoth
Under different names:
Θεός god
Θεόςμαωξιν or אלהמעזיס god of fortress
אלהיהשמס god of heaven
After that, the gods refer back to various incarnations of él.
>>> those sacred constanants not writting them, and besides it ONLY
>>> applied to Hebrew, not English, not Aramaic, nor Greek. Â And it
>>> definitely did not apply to the name Jehovah with is a complete
>>> bastardization.
German bastardization TYVM.
snip sig block
>> You got a bad case of the brainwashing rabbi syndrome. J is just
>> fine. It means Jod, dumbfuck.
There is no jod in Hebrew written text.
>> JHVH EL is the name of the demon who
>> hates mankind.
> You are confused. El is the most high god. Jehovah is the
> misspelling of those who pretend they they don't want to write the
> Tetragrammon. Jehovah is the bastardization of the pious for Yahweh.
> Yahweh was one of the sons of the high god, one of the Elohim, the
> council of gods. Like Satan he was not a demon but rather a god.
Depends Darrell, in some gnostic sects, god the creator of the earth &
the Hebrew Bible was evil incarnate.
However, essentially & basically you are correct. Except for the source of
yahweh, maybe.
Ref:
Dictionary Of Deities & Demons In The Bible
2nd. edition
ISBN 0802824919
Pgs.910-919
Seems he may be Kennenite in origin, came up from the south & never was a
member of the Canaanite pantheon.
>> If you are a rabbinical Jew, He is your God. JHVH EL
>> is translated as LORD God.
>
> Lord would be Adonis.
מךא אדכי אדון ādôn, four different words that mean the same thing.
Indeed, & it does not only apply to gods, but any social superior. Taken
in context of the times, it makes sense that it would include social
superiors.
>> The Hebrew letters are Jod He Vav He
>> (space) Aleph Lambda.
Aleph, what aleph? Did he mean א which is the alef?
> What space? Ancient Hebrew like ancient Greek had no spaces. Why are
> you pretending to understand Hebrew?
To impress the local yokels that don't bother to read what they claim to
believe?
>> That is the designation for the false God
> throughout the Old Testament.
> And in your confusion, what do you think was the name of the real god?
Ba'al? He as next in line behind él.
walksalone who suspects Darrell is simply toying with the bleaters, again &
still.
Step one: Post off topic. Show total disregard for the purpose of the
comments section. Better still, post the exact same thing in the
comments section of several totally unrelated articles.
Step two: Make sure you give a gloss of politeness to your post.
Step three: Be sure not to actually read anything on the site, just
launch your attack. Do not seek answers, and do not question your own
position. You already know you're right; either of the above would
merely be matching wits with the Devil!
Step four: When you get a response, make sure you point out how
puzzled you are that they are not yet totally convinced. Be sure to
ask "why so much anger". Point out the character flaws which are
surely the cause of their incredulity. Do not engage any of the
points
raised, do not under any circumstances enter into real dialogue; then
repeat your original post as if nothing else has yet been added to
the
discussion.
Step five: If asked a direct question, ignore it. Accuse everyone
else
of not answering your questions.
Step six: If they are still not convinced, repeat steps four and
five.
Step seven: If anyone calls you up on any of our incoherence, poor
reasoning, dishonesty or blatant lies; ignore step two. Be sure to
whip yourself up into a self-righteous frenzy, bemoan the fact that
all you want is an honest discussion, to share opinions. Tell them
how much God loves them. Tell them they'll spend an eternity in Hell.
Step eight: Leave, never to be heard from again, shaking the
metaphorical dust from your metaphorical sandals as you go.
(If only we'd be so fortunate)
Ken <flak...@aol.com>
Immortalist
> On May 17, 10:54 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Atrocious Acts of JHVH EL through Moses in the Old Testament
>
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically,
this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the
character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her
actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the
person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be
evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is
making (or presenting). ...The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind)
is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a
person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity
of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yck6E0ZBK64
Mordecai
saint...@hotmail.com wrote:
A devil? oh my goodness - impossible.
Devils are specific and exact beings and are not humans.
How silly, as a messiah - you ought to know this!
Now, as a messiah - you have an example in JC on how to answer ... devils, demon
infested people and the like.
How's about an exorcism?
As for hell - again hell is thrown into the lake of fire.
Silly boy.
My oh my - who was the one who keeps giving you false information?
Peter - seriously now - you keep preaching falsehood.
So where does this falsehood come?
If it is from you - then learn. If it is from your G_d ... then get another.
Linda Lee
Shouldn't your subject title be 'Would GOD want Moses want to convert
Christians, or just kill them all?'
Oh, that's right you're an atheist, so you think Moses was acting of
his own accord and had no contact with any god.
cactus
Better resume your meds. You are getting manic
cactus
Truth is the best defense against slander. Take your meds pjnudnik, and
maybe you will begin to see how literally crazy your recent behavior has
been.
Mike Painter
Saint Peter when faced with knowledge stops pretending to know something.
Mike Painter
<snip>
> Shouldn't your subject title be 'Would GOD want Moses want to convert
> Christians, or just kill them all?'
>
> Oh, that's right you're an atheist, so you think Moses was acting of
> his own accord and had no contact with any god.
No, we are atheists and do not believe that there was a Moses or that he
wrote any of the books fundamentals say he did.
We get this information from the vast amount of scholarship done by
mainstrean christians who don't let the truth get in the way of their faith.
We respect them.
You on the other hand are just another fundy twit.
saint...@hotmail.com
The old switcheroo. Just the opposite is true.
Linda Lee
Proving once again you don't know what you're talking about. I wasn't
talking to you anyway, I was talking to Darrell. The way you act, I
suppose to talk to one atheist is the same as talking to any other
atheist. No individual thought, huh?
Mike Painter
Not when it comes to questioning the scholarship of thousands of well
educated people who come to a consensus based on thousands of man years of
work. No sane person questions it without a similar education and time spent
in studying the issue.
You question it.
You are like the kid who decides to breath through a hose to explore the
bottom of the swimming pool.
Individual thought led him to that idea.
Darrell Stec
>
> Darrell Stec <darrel...@webpagesorcery.com>
> news:482f89b4$0$31766$4c36...@roadrunner.com
>
> utf-8 compliant news reader strongly suggested.
>
>> saint...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On May 17, 4:38Â pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> saint7pe...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> > On May 17, 1:43Â pm, "Onoit" <on...@sno.tso> wrote:
>>>> >> To himself?
>>>>
>>>> > Away from a God whose only virtue is that He doesn't exist. Â Such
>>>> > is the JHVH EL of the Old Testament.
>>>>
>>>> What is the JHVH EL? Â Are you mistakingly trying to prevent writing
>>>> the Tetragrammon, YHVH? Â If so, the injunction was against utter
>
> There is no yhwh él in the Hebrew Bible. There is no, to my less than
> encyclopedic knowledge, yhvh.
>
He is right there beginning with the second chapter of Genesis and continues
throughout. He is called Adonai Yahweh or just plain Yahweh in other parts
of the bible. Adonai meaning simply lord. Jehovah comes from taking
the 'a' 'o' 'a' from Adonai and substituting them for Yahovah, but during
the KJV period the Y got transliterated to J.
The tie between the two comes from equating the creation story of Genesis 1
with the creation story of Genesis 2.
But there definitely is a YHVH throughout the Hebrew bible. In fact Job
chapter 1 verse 6 nicely ties up the Elohim and the sons of god YHVH Yahweh
and Satan together.
To add to the confusion, the Aleppo Codex circa 930 CE (using the Masoretic
Texts to supplement spacing and vowels) uses Yahweh Elohim in Genesis 2
instead of Adonis Elohim as found for instance in the JPS.
In addition I have a sloppy habit of substituting W for V as in writing
Yahweh instead of YaHVeH (yod . he . vav . he).
The first chapter of Genesis just mentions the Elohim.
> Yahweh, is never directly associated with él, Who of course was the
> original god of the region.
> It is true that yahweh through his priesthood eventually subsumed all of
> the other gods and the Canaanite/Judean people.
> Among his various roles were
> יהןה yahweh
> יהןהעכאןח yahweh zabaoth
Actually he is in Job.
>
> Under different names:
> Θεός god
Theos is simply an anonymous placehold for the concept of god. The
Christians started using that to avoid mentioning any particular god to
avoid the trap with which they were cornered by the Yahweh problem.
> Θεόςμαωξιν or אלהמעזיס god of fortress
> אלהיהשמס god of heaven
>
> After that, the gods refer back to various incarnations of él.
>
I don't think we can separate all of the strands before the stories were
written. For instance Job appears to have been written over many, many
centuries with some parts of it going way back into some oral history, and
we don't know how many times that had changed over the centuries.
>>>> those sacred constanants not writting them, and besides it ONLY
>>>> applied to Hebrew, not English, not Aramaic, nor Greek. Â And it
>>>> definitely did not apply to the name Jehovah with is a complete
>>>> bastardization.
>
> German bastardization TYVM.
>
In the KJV?
> snip sig block
>
>>> You got a bad case of the brainwashing rabbi syndrome. J is just
>>> fine. It means Jod, dumbfuck.
>
> There is no jod in Hebrew written text.
>
It's kind of funny. He bastardizes Yod in the same way Yahveh is
bastardized.
>>> JHVH EL is the name of the demon who
>>> hates mankind.
>
>> You are confused. El is the most high god. Jehovah is the
>> misspelling of those who pretend they they don't want to write the
>> Tetragrammon. Jehovah is the bastardization of the pious for Yahweh.
>> Yahweh was one of the sons of the high god, one of the Elohim, the
>> council of gods. Like Satan he was not a demon but rather a god.
>
> Depends Darrell, in some gnostic sects, god the creator of the earth &
> the Hebrew Bible was evil incarnate.
Of course. Because Yahweh of the Old Testament was unabashedly cruel and
immoral, they needed some type of explanation. But to the Hebrews, their
god was not cruel, just a justification for the cruelty they themselves
displayed. That is, if any of those stories were actually true and not
just fables of their invented history by the princes and priests returning
from Babylon as puppets of the Persians.
> However, essentially & basically you are correct. Except for the source
> of yahweh, maybe.
>
> Ref:
> Dictionary Of Deities & Demons In The Bible
> 2nd. edition
> ISBN 0802824919
>
> Pgs.910-919
>
> Seems he may be Kennenite in origin, came up from the south & never was a
> member of the Canaanite pantheon.
>
>>> If you are a rabbinical Jew, He is your God. JHVH EL
>>> is translated as LORD God.
>>
>> Lord would be Adonis.
>
> מךא אדכי אדון ādôn, four different words that mean the same thing.
>
> Indeed, & it does not only apply to gods, but any social superior. Taken
> in context of the times, it makes sense that it would include social
> superiors.
>
>>> The Hebrew letters are Jod He Vav He
>>> (space) Aleph Lambda.
>
> Aleph, what aleph? Did he mean א which is the alef?
>
>
Yes. Alef is also written as Aleph in many courses on Hebrew, especially
the online ones.
>> What space? Ancient Hebrew like ancient Greek had no spaces. Why are
>> you pretending to understand Hebrew?
>
> To impress the local yokels that don't bother to read what they claim to
> believe?
>
>>> That is the designation for the false God
>> throughout the Old Testament.
>
>> And in your confusion, what do you think was the name of the real god?
>
> Ba'al? He as next in line behind él.
>
He certainly made a few appearances. I've read some references to Baal
being represented by a bull. In Exodus while Moses was busy eating sacred
mushrooms up on that mountain (trust me I read that somewhere) the Jews
were busy making a golden bull (Yeah, I know it is translated as calf but
the word was bull). I've also seen references to Yahweh being represented
by both the 'all seeing eye' and a bull. I think Exodus has various
stories and strands mangled together mixing their modern Persian theology
with lesser remembered and understood ancient oral traditions of the area.
> walksalone who suspects Darrell is simply toying with the bleaters, again
> & still.
>
>
I doth protest! What, me toying? Well I never.
or Step nine, if you don't leave, assume another name and start the dialog
all over again as though you never had that conversation before.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
Xan
<saint...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aebf6d01-c9d0-42d9...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Not in Judaism.
>
When you find the real Truth you realize how petty all these silly squabbles
about names and terms and stuff like this are.
The real Truth releases you FROM religion. It releases you from all this
kind of stuff that they teach on Earth among humans.
It is a breath of fresh air.
To be absolutely confident and to be able to say THE BIBLE IS BULLSHIT and
know perfectly well this is True!
And to not be afraid of any religion or religions or Gods or teachings or
Jesus or any of the rest of it.
Because the real Truth is so much better and so infinitely more beautiful
and fantastic than any of that kind of stuff.
Xan
Darrell Stec
I don't change titles, if you are directing your comments to me. I'm not
going to investigate exactly who changed it from god to moses, but I
suspect it was saintpeter himself who is one of you Jews for Jesus or
Messianic Christian types.
Besides Moses was a figment of the Jewish imagination just as all their
various gods were. I haven't seen evidence for any of them. Most likely
the massacres were fables too. So I would have no need to change the
title.
I work within the context of scripture much like I work within the context
of Tolkien's fantasy when discussing whether Balrogs have wings.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
Darrell Stec
Well, you can see that my previous reply to you was essentially the message
that Mike conveyed to you.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
Linda Lee
> Linda Lee wrote:
> > On May 18, 1:08 pm, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> Shouldn't your subject title be 'Would GOD want Moses want to
> >>> convert Christians, or just kill them all?'
>
> >>> Oh, that's right you're an atheist, so you think Moses was acting of
> >>> his own accord and had no contact with any god.
>
> >> No, we are atheists and do not believe that there was a Moses or
> >> that he wrote any of the books fundamentals say he did.
>
> >> We get this information from the vast amount of scholarship done by
> >> mainstrean christians who don't let the truth get in the way of
> >> their faith.
>
> >> We respect them.
>
> >> You on the other hand are just another fundy twit.
>
> > Proving once again you don't know what you're talking about. I wasn't
> > talking to you anyway, I was talking to Darrell. The way you act, I
> > suppose to talk to one atheist is the same as talking to any other
> > atheist. No individual thought, huh?
>
> Not when it comes to questioning the scholarship of thousands of well
> educated people who come to a consensus based on thousands of man years of
> work.
Many scholars do believe Moses actually existed. I'm not interested in
the opinions of atheist scholars or atheist idiots.
> No sane person questions it without a similar education and time spent
> in studying the issue.
You're lying.
Linda Lee
Do you mean the guy who posts here who claims to be St. Peter or are
you delusional as well? (Btw, you really add things that aren't there;
I did not say it was changed from God to Moses at all or changed at
all. My question indicated it should be changed to 'Would God want
Moses to convert Christians...'? It is really hard to take you
seriously when you have trouble understanding a single sentence.)
> who is one of you Jews for Jesus or
> Messianic Christian types.
>
I am not a member of Jews for Jesus and don't know anything about the
organization, am not a Jew, and have never claimed either. I suppose
since many Christians are actually Pauline Christians whose only true
teacher is the false apostle Paul, Messianic Christian would be
correct.
Linda Lee
wrote:
>
> Webpage Sorceryhttp://webpagesorcery.com
> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Like I said, apparently atheists have no individual thought.
Darrell Stec
Neither are they. They pretend to be Jews who believe in Christianity.
They are Christians and barely distinguishable from Messianic Christians.
Same girl scout troop, different den patch.
> I suppose
> since many Christians are actually Pauline Christians whose only true
> teacher is the false apostle Paul, Messianic Christian would be
> correct.
Could you parse that into English?
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
Darrell Stec
How about Jewish scholars and Jewish archaeologists? They are the ones who
say that archaelogy shows there is no evidence for the Exodus story nor for
Moses.
>> No sane person questions it without a similar education and time spent
>> in studying the issue.
>
> You're lying.
>
>> You question it.
>>
>
>> You are like the kid who decides to breath through a hose to explore the
>> bottom of the swimming pool.
>> Individual thought led him to that idea.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
Darrell Stec
If one defines darkness as the absence of light and one should ask how
bright the light was in that darkness there is obviously only one
conclusion any reasoning person could come to -- there was no brightness.
Each reasoning person would come to the same conclusion independently
through individual thought. Though it might appear to the unreasoning
person who bases everything on faith and imagination that the conclusion
was a collective meme, it was however individual.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
Mike Painter
<snip>
>>
>> Not when it comes to questioning the scholarship of thousands of
>> well educated people who come to a consensus based on thousands of
>> man years of work.
>
> Many scholars do believe Moses actually existed. I'm not interested in
> the opinions of atheist scholars or atheist idiots.
I doubt you will find *any* atheist scholar working on the problem. I've
never heard of one. The writer of the first book I read, "The Ten
Commandments", on the subject was the minister of a church in Washington DC.
No mainstream scholar* holds that view. " It is taught at the great majority
of universities and seminaries, it figures in nearly all the standard
textbooks. The faculty of the major graduate institutions in the U.S. for
study of the Bible are persuaded by the evidence for it: UCSD, Berkeley,
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Pennsylvania, Chicago, Emory, Vanderbilt."
*"There are many people who claim to be biblical scholars. I refer to
scholars who have the necessary training in languages, biblical archeology,
and literary and historical skills to work on the problem, and who meet
discuss and debate their ideas and research with other scholars through
scholarly journals, conferences, etc."
Richard Elliott Friedman "Who wrote the bible."
>> No sane person questions it without a similar education and time
>> spent
>> in studying the issue.
>
> You're lying.
"In the pursuit of the truth, you're supposed to address the other guys'
arguments and evidence. When people don't even mention that evidence and
those arguments, and then just claim that the hypothesis has been disproven,
that tells you something about the weakness of their position." Friedman
Mike Painter
<snip>
>
>> I suppose
>> since many Christians are actually Pauline Christians whose only true
>> teacher is the false apostle Paul, Messianic Christian would be
>> correct.
>
> Could you parse that into English?
Sure. Believe as Linda does or you're going to hell.
Luther said it better.
"I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the angels.
He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved"
-- Martin Luther Werke (Erlangen),XXIX , 217-33, on Maritian, 15.
Linda Lee
LOL. I guess it has escaped your notice that not all Jews believe in
God and many Jews are atheists. ????
Cactus here (who says he is Jewish) says he is atheist on some days
and monotheistic on others. Don't ask me how - ask him.
>
> >> No sane person questions it without a similar education and time spent
> >> in studying the issue.
>
> > You're lying.
>
> >> You question it.
>
> >> You are like the kid who decides to breath through a hose to explore the
> >> bottom of the swimming pool.
> >> Individual thought led him to that idea.
That would only be illogical if it were not an air hose.
>
> --
> Later,
Doubtful.
> Darrell Stec dars...@neo.rr.com
>
> Webpage Sorceryhttp://webpagesorcery.com
turtoni
Darrell Stec
You are playing word games because Jewish can refer to religion or it can
refer the ethnic or cultural background. Which did you mean? I meant the
former.
> Cactus here (who says he is Jewish) says he is atheist on some days
> and monotheistic on others. Don't ask me how - ask him.
>
>>
>> >> No sane person questions it without a similar education and time spent
>> >> in studying the issue.
>>
>> > You're lying.
>>
>> >> You question it.
>>
>> >> You are like the kid who decides to breath through a hose to explore
>> >> the bottom of the swimming pool.
>> >> Individual thought led him to that idea.
>
> That would only be illogical if it were not an air hose.
>
>>
>> --
>> Later,
>
> Doubtful.
>
>> Darrell Stec dars...@neo.rr.com
>>
>> Webpage Sorceryhttp://webpagesorcery.com
>> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
Linda Lee
It has nothing to do with "word games"; I don't play when it comes to
religion and atheist lies.
> because Jewish can refer to religion or it can
> refer the ethnic or cultural background.
No kidding, Sherlock. I'm impressed you finally figured that out.
> Which did you mean? I meant the
> former.
Sure you did, and you already know what I meant because I told you
outright, so drop the pretense. Nice attempt to cop-out on your
illogic, but no sale.
In case you haven't noticed, I don't intend to get sucked into the
atheist web of lies again right now; I'm not in the mood for your
usual crap. Talk to Phoenix; he has some questions you'd love to
answer.
turtoni
take away your sugar.
HTHurts
Darrell Stec
Yes you do. All the time and everyone here has pointed those games out to
you each time you play them.
>
>> because Jewish can refer to religion or it can
>> refer the ethnic or cultural background.
>
> No kidding, Sherlock. I'm impressed you finally figured that out.
>
>> Which did you mean? I meant the
>> former.
>
> Sure you did, and you already know what I meant because I told you
> outright, so drop the pretense. Nice attempt to cop-out on your
> illogic, but no sale.
>
What illogic? There are Jewish archaeologists and scholars who are both
culturally and religiously Jewish that have come to the conclusion that the
evidence does not support the Exodus story, nor the character of Moses
being historical. So again, you are playing games. Next you will play
the "No True Scotsman" game. [or maybe you are already playing it, with
subterfuge]
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
turtoni
Mark K. Bilbo
Translation: "I only accept as evidence that which backs up what I've
already decided to believe."
walksalone
> walksalone wrote:
>
>>
>> Darrell Stec <darrel...@webpagesorcery.com>
>> news:482f89b4$0$31766$4c36...@roadrunner.com
>>
>> utf-8 compliant news reader strongly suggested.
>>
>>> saint...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 17, 4:38Â pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> saint7pe...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> > On May 17, 1:43Â pm, "Onoit" <on...@sno.tso> wrote:
>>>>> >> To himself?
>>>>>
>>>>> > Away from a God whose only virtue is that He doesn't exist. Â Such
>>>>> > is the JHVH EL of the Old Testament.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the JHVH EL? Â Are you mistakingly trying to prevent writing
>>>>> the Tetragrammon, YHVH? Â If so, the injunction was against utter
>>
>> There is no yhwh él in the Hebrew Bible. There is no, to my less than
>> encyclopedic knowledge, yhvh.
>>
>
> He is right there beginning with the second chapter of Genesis and continues
> throughout. He is called Adonai Yahweh or just plain Yahweh in other parts
Er, no. Lord God is what I have in the Torah [English version, a scholar I
am not].
2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.
2:5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field
had yet sprung up; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the
earth, and there was not a man to till the ground;
2:6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of
the ground.
2:7 Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Adonia OTOH,
22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Adonai-jireh; as it is said
to this day: 'In the mount where the Lord is seen.'
Yahweh is a no show in the books I have. But then, is not chapter two
considered the J edition?
> of the bible. Adonai meaning simply lord. Jehovah comes from taking
> the 'a' 'o' 'a' from Adonai and substituting them for Yahovah, but during
> the KJV period the Y got transliterated to J.
I quite agree with the German stated jehovah foundation.
>
> The tie between the two comes from equating the creation story of Genesis 1
> with the creation story of Genesis 2.
Not from my reading.
> But there definitely is a YHVH throughout the Hebrew bible. In fact Job
> chapter 1 verse 6 nicely ties up the Elohim and the sons of god YHVH Yahweh
> and Satan together.
Yahweh apparently was not a pre-exilic major player. The information I
have indicates that he was an import, like the Judean's of "Israel".
Kennenite to be exact. Not until after exodus, at Mt. Sinai, does he
become directly involved. The god that led them out from Egypt, either él
or ba'al. Probably ba'al given the hatred the priesthood shows him. But
él can't be counted out.
That's based on the continuous evidence for replacing older gods that no
longer did the job with newer ones that did. A common theme in the ANE.
To add yahweh who was unknown in the Judean highlands is to complicate
without cause. He was not known at Ur either, or at least there is no
strong case for such a conclusion. Had he have been, that would strengthen
the case for claiming he was known as early as Genesis.
> To add to the confusion, the Aleppo Codex circa 930 CE (using the Masoretic
> Texts to supplement spacing and vowels) uses Yahweh Elohim in Genesis 2
> instead of Adonis Elohim as found for instance in the JPS.
But they had to, for Hebrew was a dying language, & the myth of Hebrew
monotheism needed all the help it could get. Some of those rabbinic
writings are wowsers.
> In addition I have a sloppy habit of substituting W for V as in writing
> Yahweh instead of YaHVeH (yod . he . vav . he).
We all have habits that we could do without, & on usenet, I'm not looking
for points, or as Jack Webb was prone to say. The facts ma'am, just the
facts. Sometimes those damn things are not the same as my facts, & then I
need to know.
> The first chapter of Genesis just mentions the Elohim.
Isaiah does as well IIRC, the elohim of Egypt, again, IIRC.
>> Yahweh, is never directly associated with él, Who of course was the
>> original god of the region.
>> It is true that yahweh through his priesthood eventually subsumed all of
>> the other gods and the Canaanite/Judean people.
>> Among his various roles were
>> יהןה yahweh
>> יהןהעכאןח yahweh zabaoth
>
> Actually he is in Job.
Actually, I don't make that connection. I suspect I don't have the habit
of equating Lord with yahweh. This pisses a lot of people off. But I was
taught that if there is no reason to make an assumption then don't. In
historical context, there is no reason for the assumption that I'm aware
of.
>
>>
>> Under different names:
>> Θεός god
>
> Theos is simply an anonymous placehold for the concept of god. The
> Christians started using that to avoid mentioning any particular god to
> avoid the trap with which they were cornered by the Yahweh problem.
& they still can't avoid the self induced trap. I guess that's what
happens when you take a Greek misconception of another mythology & call it
good.
>> Θεόςμαωξιν or אלהמעזיס god of fortress
>> אלהיהשמס god of heaven
>>
>> After that, the gods refer back to various incarnations of él.
>>
>
> I don't think we can separate all of the strands before the stories were
> written. For instance Job appears to have been written over many, many
> centuries with some parts of it going way back into some oral history, and
> we don't know how many times that had changed over the centuries.
& put in its final form when, ca. -545 Gregorian? After the redactor's had
their fun with it. Just one of the many problems Judean mythology has.
>>>>> those sacred constanants not writting them, and besides it ONLY
>>>>> applied to Hebrew, not English, not Aramaic, nor Greek. Â And it
>>>>> definitely did not apply to the name Jehovah with is a complete
>>>>> bastardization.
>>
>> German bastardization TYVM.
>>
>
> In the KJV?
>
>> snip sig block
>>
>>>> You got a bad case of the brainwashing rabbi syndrome. J is just
>>>> fine. It means Jod, dumbfuck.
>>
>> There is no jod in Hebrew written text.
>>
>
> It's kind of funny. He bastardizes Yod in the same way Yahveh is
> bastardized.
You assume he has read the material then?
>>>> JHVH EL is the name of the demon who
>>>> hates mankind.
>>
>>> You are confused. El is the most high god. Jehovah is the
>>> misspelling of those who pretend they they don't want to write the
>>> Tetragrammon. Jehovah is the bastardization of the pious for Yahweh.
>>> Yahweh was one of the sons of the high god, one of the Elohim, the
>>> council of gods. Like Satan he was not a demon but rather a god.
>>
>> Depends Darrell, in some gnostic sects, god the creator of the earth &
>> the Hebrew Bible was evil incarnate.
>
> Of course. Because Yahweh of the Old Testament was unabashedly cruel and
> immoral, they needed some type of explanation. But to the Hebrews, their
> god was not cruel, just a justification for the cruelty they themselves
> displayed. That is, if any of those stories were actually true and not
> just fables of their invented history by the princes and priests returning
> from Babylon as puppets of the Persians.
The gnostics were xian in outlook. We know what happened to them, as well
as the reason their writings are so scarce.
Primarily as a bull, as was él. It represented, among other things, the
power of the god. In the case of ba'al, it also represented his power as a
god of fertility. Those epics are, erm, interesting & on line.
> mushrooms up on that mountain (trust me I read that somewhere) the Jews
> were busy making a golden bull (Yeah, I know it is translated as calf but
An indication that the soon to be Judean's still worshipped él, or were
beginning to worship ba'al. In any event, yahweh had to wait until his
priesthood subsumed all the other gods before it could be an attribute of
his. & yes, he did claim to be ba'al. Read Hosea for more on that.
> the word was bull). I've also seen references to Yahweh being represented
> by both the 'all seeing eye' and a bull. I think Exodus has various
> stories and strands mangled together mixing their modern Persian theology
> with lesser remembered and understood ancient oral traditions of the area.
Almost undoubtedly. But recall, when you are writing a national epic that
has no historical foundation, you have to use what was available & that
people would not object to. This means you need to place the epic in the
distant past where there is no one living that can say, now just a damn
minute there. Like the references to cities that predate Judea.
>> walksalone who suspects Darrell is simply toying with the bleaters, again
>> & still.
>
> I doth protest! What, me toying? Well I never.
Said the cat to the mouse.
That was a given, but the bleaters would have missed it. BTW, speaking of
that, or lad/lass phoenix, did he ever post as phoenix snow? If so, I had
that name in my kill file. If they are the same, I can see why.
walksalone who suspects, that unless careful I am, learn something I might.
[I will forward the aspirin bill to you if that happens]
There is one only good, namely, knowledge; and one only evil, namely,
ignorance."
-- Laertius Diogenes (-c. 320 BC), Greek philosopher
cindys
"Darrell Stec" <darrel...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:48313159$0$3371$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>> In case you haven't noticed, I don't intend to get sucked into the
>> atheist web of lies again right now; I'm not in the mood for your
>> usual crap. Talk to Phoenix; he has some questions you'd love to
>> answer.
FTR, I just want to comment that I don't understand and will never
understand why Phoenix et al are so obsessed with initiating threads and
crossposting to the atheist newsgroup. You guys (the atheists) are entitled
to have your beliefs just as Jews are entitled to have ours, and there is
nothing that ticks me off more than missionizing. Don't you get sick and
tired of being baited by Christian missionaries? It's interesting that I
never seen any atheists coming over to Christian or Jewish newsgroups to
evangelize atheism.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Robibnikoff
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4831a7d7$0$7079$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
That's because we basically don't give a crap what people believe as long as
it's kept out of public schools, the government and our faces.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
cindys
"Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:69dnn1F...@mid.individual.net...
I feel exactly the same way as you do, and I'm Jewish.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Darrell Stec
> Er, no. Lord God is what I have in the Torah [English version, a scholar I
> am not].
That is a serious problem using the English. I have about 5 Hebrew texts at
my fingertips and use the Internet for some of the esoteric stuff, i.e.
manuscripts that differ. Some times when you see the English word judges
or angels, it is Elohim and is purposefully mistranslated. Just
like 'bara' is mistranslated as 'create' at the beginning of the Genesis
story but 'fill up' or 'fatten' everywhere else it appears. I believe that
the KJV translators, heavily influenced by Christian Orthodoxy interjected
their believe that god created the universe. But it is very obvious
looking at the Hebrew that the universe already existed, or at least the
earth covered with water did, from the beginning.
saint...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Alot of haters of the truth are out this morning.
Robibnikoff
That doesn't surprise me - Judaism is known as a non-proselytizing religion
;)
Darrell Stec
Linda Lee
> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4831a7d7$0$7079$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Darrell Stec" <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
> >news:48313159$0$3371$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> >>> In case you haven't noticed, I don't intend to get sucked into the
> >>> atheist web of lies again right now; I'm not in the mood for your
> >>> usual crap. Talk to Phoenix; he has some questions you'd love to
> >>> answer.
> > --------
> > FTR, I just want to comment that I don't understand and will never
> > understand why Phoenix et al are so obsessed with initiating threads and
> > crossposting to the atheist newsgroup. You guys (the atheists) are
> > entitled to have your beliefs just as Jews are entitled to have ours, and
> > there is nothing that ticks me off more than missionizing. Don't you get
> > sick and tired of being baited by Christian missionaries? It's
> > interesting that I never seen any atheists coming over to Christian or
> > Jewish newsgroups to evangelize atheism.
>
> That's because we basically don't give a crap what people believe as long as
> it's kept out of public schools, the government and our faces.
> --
> Robyn
> Resident Witchypoo
> BAAWA Knight!
> #1557
Then you could easily end it by not including alt.messianic in your
replies. Just reply to author if you can't stop yourself from
responding. I for one don't want to missionise you and don't welcome
you here.
saint...@hotmail.com
Don't you atheist pigs have something better to do than cheer
yourselves on all day? What a bunch of sick fucks you are.
cindys
"Linda Lee" <lindag...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:f0354467-3aa2-4379...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
The problem is that another poster (Phoenix/Guardian Snow) from
alt.messianic persists in crossposting to the atheist and Buddhist groups.
So, the problem lies right here (on alt.messianic) not on alt.atheism. You
really can't blame the atheists for being ticked off. It's exactly the same
as Randy's ongoing initiation of Judaism-bashing threads and then other
people complaining about my "hateful" responses to him. If someone writes a
check, you can't blame the recipient for cashing it.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Linda Lee
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
I don't believe Phoenix is missionizing though, as he says his only
goal is to ask what experiences led them to become/remain atheists,
and he is not posting about the Scriptures to them at all unless (as
atheist Darrell has done) they bring up a particular verse first. It
is a public forum and he has the right to post there and is not
missionizing them. Robyn has misinformed you as to what he is doing.
Some of them have answered him, and he has not condemned them or said
they should change/convert; in fact he's complimented them.
Cary Kittrell
> On May 19, 2:34=A0pm, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> > On May 19, 12:21 pm, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >news:4831a7d7$0$7079$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> >
> > > > "Darrell Stec" <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:48313159$0$3371$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> >
> > > >>> In case you haven't noticed, I don't intend to get sucked into the
> > > >>> atheist web of lies again right now; I'm not in the mood for your
> > > >>> usual crap. Talk to Phoenix; he has some questions you'd love to
> > > >>> answer.
> > > > --------
> > > > FTR, I just want to comment that I don't understand and will never
> nd
> > > > crossposting to the atheist newsgroup. You guys (the atheists) are
> and
> > > > there is nothing that ticks me off more than missionizing. Don't you g=
> et
> > > > sick and tired of being baited by Christian missionaries? =A0It's
> > > > interesting that I never seen any atheists coming over to Christian or=
>
> > > > Jewish newsgroups to evangelize atheism.
> >
> g as
> > > it's kept out of public schools, the government and our faces.
> > > --
> > > Robyn
> > > Resident Witchypoo
> > > BAAWA Knight!
> > > #1557
> >
> > Then you could easily end it by not including alt.messianic in your
> > replies. Just reply to author if you can't stop yourself from
> > responding. I for one don't want to missionise you and don't welcome
> > you here.
>
> Don't you atheist pigs have something better to do than cheer
> yourselves on all day? What a bunch of sick fucks you are.
Beg pardon? You think that Linda Lee is an atheist?
OK, now THAT's funny.
-- cary
cindys
Okay.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
panam...@hotmail.com
Not today, no. Well, not until I get home to my girlfriend, anyway.
http://www.last.fm/music/Oingo+Boingo/_/Wild+Sex+(In+the+Working+Class)
> What a bunch of sick fucks you are.
Hey, I'm not the one claiming the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-
luuuvin' "creator" of the universe had to sacrifice himself...to
*himself*...to spare his own "creation" from his own wrath.
Dude, if your god exists, the fucker needs some *serious* therapy.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
panam...@hotmail.com
You wouldn't know truth if it washed and waxed your car, idiot.
Swooning away to big pixies in the sky instead of facing life on your
own two feet. Ugh. You clowns must be the greatest weaklings on the
face of the Earth. Now get outta here...don't you have to rotate the
cinderblocks on your Camaro or something?
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/archive/curiosities/kelso_camero.html
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
cindys
snip
>
>
> I don't believe Phoenix is missionizing though, as he says his only
> goal is to ask what experiences led them to become/remain atheists,
> and he is not posting about the Scriptures to them at all unless (as
> atheist Darrell has done) they bring up a particular verse first.
So, why doesn't Phoenix post directly to the alt.atheist group (without all
these crossposts, including eliminating alt.messianic). Then, he could have
his private conversation with the atheist group and leave alt.messianic out
of it, and then the people on alt.messianic, alt.philosophy, etc could be
spared the entire conversation. You said you didn't want to read the
atheists' posts/discussion on alt.messianic, and you wouldn't have had to
read them if Phoenix had limited his discussion to the alt.atheism group.
But the reason people crosspost is because they want to involve other people
from other groups in the conversation, usually for no good purpose, usually
to troll. If his purpose wasn't to missionize, then it was to initiate a
flame war between atheists and Christians, and it would appear that he
succeeded at least to a certain degree.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Robibnikoff
You're a fucking moron, Linda. I didn't even comment on what Phoenix is
doing.
>> Some of them have answered him, and he has not condemned them or said
>> they should change/convert; in fact he's complimented them.
> --------
> Okay.
BTW, I didn't misinform you about what anyone is doing. I don't know who
this Phoenix moron is, much less what he's doing and didn't comment on it..
You'll have to excuse Linda. She's just a self-righteous moron.
saint...@hotmail.com
>
> -Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
> aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Are you a Sadducee? I wonder how many of your "atheists" are really
Saducees in disguise. I would guess at least 80%. You certainly talk
just like the other racist Jews on these newsgroups. Why don't you
just come out and admit that you are Jewish and you hate Jesus because
you are Jewish.
AZ Nomad
>saint...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On May 19, 10:09 am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
>> wrote:
>>> walksalone wrote:
>>> > Er, no. Lord God is what I have in the Torah [English version, a
>>> > scholar I am not].
>>>
>>> That is a serious problem using the English. I have about 5 Hebrew texts
>>> at my fingertips and use the Internet for some of the esoteric stuff,
>>> i.e. manuscripts that differ. Some times when you see the English word
>>> judges or angels, it is Elohim and is purposefully mistranslated. Just
>>> like 'bara' is mistranslated as 'create' at the beginning of the Genesis
>>> story but 'fill up' or 'fatten' everywhere else it appears. I believe
>>> that the KJV translators, heavily influenced by Christian Orthodoxy
>>> interjected their believe that god created the universe. But it is very
>>> obvious looking at the Hebrew that the universe already existed, or at
>>> least the earth covered with water did, from the beginning.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Later,
>>> Darrell Stec dars...@neo.rr.com
>>
>> Alot of haters of the truth are out this morning.
When you means "lies to promote christianity", you need to capitolize
the word, as in "Truth".
Mordecai
cindys wrote:
> "Linda Lee" <lindag...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:ddc28790-93e0-40e7...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> snip
> >
> >
> > I don't believe Phoenix is missionizing though, as he says his only
> > goal is to ask what experiences led them to become/remain atheists,
> > and he is not posting about the Scriptures to them at all unless (as
> > atheist Darrell has done) they bring up a particular verse first.
> ------------
> So, why doesn't Phoenix post directly to the alt.atheist group (without all
> these crossposts, including eliminating alt.messianic). Then, he could have
> his private conversation with the atheist group and leave alt.messianic out
> of it, and then the people on alt.messianic, alt.philosophy, etc could be
> spared the entire conversation. You said you didn't want to read the
> atheists' posts/discussion on alt.messianic, and you wouldn't have had to
> read them if Phoenix had limited his discussion to the alt.atheism group.
> But the reason people crosspost is because they want to involve other people
> from other groups in the conversation, usually for no good purpose, usually
> to troll. If his purpose wasn't to missionize, then it was to initiate a
> flame war between atheists and Christians, and it would appear that he
> succeeded at least to a certain degree.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
>
I do believe it is Peter who is doing this cross posting.
Not that I am really interested in who is doing this ... it happens.
I seek to avoid cross posting threads and try to remove any extra groups (though
sometimes i will forget.)
--
Mordecai!
When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is
wrong, and reality is Never wrong.
John Locke
wrote:
You're just another frustrated fundi who can't accept the obvious
fact that there is no "God". Atheists are clear of mind. The religious
torment themselves with unending theological contradictions.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Mike Painter
>>
>>>> You are like the kid who decides to breath through a hose to
>>>> explore the bottom of the swimming pool.
>>>> Individual thought led him to that idea.
>
> That would only be illogical if it were not an air hose.
>
You have such apalling ignorance.
Garden hose, air hose, nylon hose, it can't be done. If the hose was only
three feet long it could not be done.
Simple high school physics tells you way and more than one "individual
thinker like you has tried the three foot snorkel I used to use in class.
Gosh, physics is right!
Individual thought without an education usually leads to this type of
behavior.
Mike Painter
> "Linda Lee" <lindag...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:ddc28790-93e0-40e7...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> snip
>>
>>
>> I don't believe Phoenix is missionizing though, as he says his only
>> goal is to ask what experiences led them to become/remain atheists,
>> and he is not posting about the Scriptures to them at all unless (as
>> atheist Darrell has done) they bring up a particular verse first.
> ------------
> So, why doesn't Phoenix post directly to the alt.atheist group
> (without all these crossposts, including eliminating alt.messianic).
> Then, he could have his private conversation with the atheist group
> and leave alt.messianic out of it, and then the people on
> alt.messianic, alt.philosophy, etc could be spared the entire
> conversation. You said you didn't want to read the atheists'
> posts/discussion on alt.messianic, and you wouldn't have had to read
> them if Phoenix had limited his discussion to the alt.atheism group.
> But the reason people crosspost is because they want to involve other
> people from other groups in the conversation, usually for no good
> purpose, usually to troll. If his purpose wasn't to missionize, then
> it was to initiate a flame war between atheists and Christians, and
> it would appear that he succeeded at least to a certain degree. Best
> regards,
> ---Cindy S.
It would be a simple thing to do and specific instructions on how to do this
has been posted for the benefit of some like LL, Suzanne and the other
people out near the edge of the bell curve.
LL, does not seem to be able to stop. When she first started posting to AA
she told us about what Matthew says - naturally it took an atheist to point
out what it really said.and that she should read 2 Cor for the proper
instructions.
But she came in thinking she was not supposed to talk with us, and does not
seem to be able to stop. Masochists are like that.
Mike Painter
>>>
>>> That's because we basically don't give a crap what people believe
>>> as long as it's kept out of public schools, the government and our
>>> faces.
>> --------
>> I feel exactly the same way as you do, and I'm Jewish.
>
> That doesn't surprise me - Judaism is known as a non-proselytizing
> religion ;)
Yeah, if forced to choose I would be a Jew or Quaker. It's the food and the
music.
This is a day for old memories. There is also a Jewish girl from my high
school days who went to the Catholic high school in my home town. She taught
me that what the priests said about girls not liking sex was wrong, wrong,
wrong.
Thank you Celta.
Linda Lee
> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >news:ddc28790-93e0-40e7...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >> On May 19, 5:43 pm, "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> doing.
>
> >> Some of them have answered him, and he has not condemned them or said
> >> they should change/convert; in fact he's complimented them.
> > --------
> > Okay.
>
> BTW, I didn't misinform you about what anyone is doing. I don't know who
> this Phoenix moron is, much less what he's doing and didn't comment on it..
> --
> Robyn
> Resident Witchypoo
> BAAWA Knight!
> #1557
And you're consistently profane. Suffering from Tourettes, a limited
vocabulary, or are you just hateful and frustrated?
Mark K. Bilbo
Don't you have anything better to do than cross-post your religious
drivel into alt.atheism?
Mark K. Bilbo
Well, somebody named "saint...@hotmail.com" is cross-posting *into*
alt.atheism. I've seen many cases where threads appear mid-stream with
"saint...@hotmail.com" adding alt.atheism to the headers.
Some religious nutter is dragging you folks in here. It ain't us.
Mark K. Bilbo
Well, "atheist" in the Pastor Flake/Danny Min tradition meaning "someone
who disagrees with me on the slightest thing".
Mark K. Bilbo
> On May 19, 3:21 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On May 19, 2:02 pm, saint7pe...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 19, 10:09 am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> walksalone wrote:
>>>>> Er, no. Lord God is what I have in the Torah [English version, a scholar I
>>>>> am not].
>>>> That is a serious problem using the English. I have about 5 Hebrew texts at
You're an idiot.
Christ's Love
Most atheists are hateful and frustrated.
Always remember: Christ love's you, and so do I! Each and every one of you!
John Baker
wrote:
Who's 'we', numbnuts? You and the turd in your pocket?
Linda Lee
You should qualify that. These atheists who post to alt.atheism tend
to be hateful and frustrated. I've known atheists who were really
sweet people and would never stoop to these people's level.
cindys
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:8bk9g5-...@75-104-203-24.cust.wildblue.net...
snip
>
> Well, somebody named "saint...@hotmail.com" is cross-posting *into*
> alt.atheism. I've seen many cases where threads appear mid-stream with
> "saint...@hotmail.com" adding alt.atheism to the headers.
>
> Some religious nutter is dragging you folks in here. It ain't us.
-----
So I have now been told. He's beyond being a *religious* nutter. He's a
nutter in every possible way.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Douglas Berry
carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>Don't you atheist pigs have something better to do than cheer
>yourselves on all day? What a bunch of sick fucks you are.
Just feel the Christian love....
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
Darrell Stec
When I went to the Catholic Grade School (8th grade) we had a girl (somewhat
rather physically developed for her age) selling "peeks" in the boy's
bathroom for a quarter. Alas, my monthly allowance was only twenty five
cents and I had other financial obligations.
Contrast that with the injunction against the girls wearing patent leather
shoes because the boys might see up their skirts. Obviously the nuns
didn't know what we boys did, it didn't work.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Darrell Stec
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 14:42:17 -0700 (PDT) saint...@hotmail.com
> carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>
>>Don't you atheist pigs have something better to do than cheer
>>yourselves on all day? What a bunch of sick fucks you are.
>
> Just feel the Christian love....
It gives me the warm fuzzies all over.
> --
>
> Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
> Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
> Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
>
> "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
> source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
> stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
> good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
--
saint...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Douglas Berry wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 May 2008 14:42:17 -0700 (PDT) saint7pe...@hotmail.com
> > carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>
> >>Don't you atheist pigs have something better to do than cheer
> >>yourselves on all day? What a bunch of sick fucks you are.
>
> > Just feel the Christian love....
>
> It gives me the warm fuzzies all over.
Your problem is that you are fighting your own strawman. I am not a
Christian, and I am the slayer of the Jewish "God." You are so
bigoted you just make all kinds of false projections. Since I am not
a Christian, I am free to hate your guts for being a petty stupid
bigot. Got it?
DanielSan
> I am the slayer of the Jewish "God."
And I'm the slayer of orcs in Middle Earth.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I was against gay marriage until I realized *
* that I didn't have to have one." *
* --James Carville *
****************************************************
Terry Cross
> Cary Kittrell wrote:
No, that is the definition of "anti-Semitic." Please try to keep it
straight.
TCross
^@%>---*=#
"Terry Cross" <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d379b0e1-feb0-4e76...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
it has been pointed out that at best man
lives by reason, so is there some possible
reason why any of you think this would
interest a zen group ?
panam...@hotmail.com
Your dumb ass still doesn't `get it'. Around here, that's like saying
you're The Joker, here to slay Batman. And then calling us "bigots"
because we like real life better than comic books. Were you born this
stupid, or did your mama drop you on your head when you were a child?
It's all a fucking *fairy tale*, moron.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
panam...@hotmail.com
WTF? <googles "sadducee">
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0016904.html
ROFL! Fuck no, Cap'n Clueless....that's just another sect of another
pathetic mythology.
> I wonder how many of your "atheists" are really
> Saducees in disguise. I would guess at least 80%.
Well, at least your "guess" keeps your batting average down around .
0001% as usual.
> You certainly talk
> just like the other racist Jews on these newsgroups.
I was gonna make a comment here, but don't know how to reply to
something so beautifully stupid.
> Why don't you
> just come out and admit that you are Jewish and you hate Jesus because
> you are Jewish.
Because it's not true. I don't think "Jesus" ever existed, so it would
be ridiculous for me to "hate" him. The only time I've ever "hated"
mythological beings was back in college when I got tired of seeing so
many unicorn posters on the wall in my lovers' dorm rooms.
Why don't you just come out and admit that you hate Santa because you
love Halloween?
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Virgil
<484b4494-1eaf-4e02...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
saint...@hotmail.com wrote:
And we are equally free to hate your guts for being an even more petty
stupid bigot.
But we, as atheists and agnostics, have better ways to spend our time
and energies.
Linda Lee
> "Terry Cross" <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Zen does that mean you don't want it in alt.philosopy.zen?
"Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one
is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." -
Alan W. Watts
So why don't you just 'go with the flow'? Just experience what you're
presented with, 'peel the potatoes' so to speak.
Linda Lee
> In article
> <484b4494-1eaf-4e02-a20e-2094e0360...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Apparently you don't, or you wouldn't waste time responding to him.
Virgil
<171e3a61-5297-4c4a...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
Linda Lee <lyndal...@juno.com> wrote:
As I am retired now, I choose to spend some of my free time on foolish
things, just to be sure they really are as foolish as they seem.