Running circles around atheism... Re: Message to Skypher3
John P. Boatwright
>
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 10:24:02 -0700, "John P. Boatwright"
> <na...@For-God.com> wrote:
>
> >Bored With The Boring Again wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19 May 2001 02:17:07 -0500, "GundamPilot" <Gunda...@127.0.0.1>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I know you're reading this Jennifer.
> >> > How do you ignore someone who loves you and call yourself moral?
> >>
> >> Piss off asshole. You're the reason she left alt.atheism.
> >>
> >> Oh, PS. She went back to atheism and is now dating me.
> >
> >You wish!
> >
> >Gosh...
> >
> >Jennifer is nice person, it's extremely unlikely that she'd
> >ever date you... and she's NOT an atheist.
> >
> >Why do atheists LIE so much?
>
> Why do you believe in all that bullshit you try to pass off to us as
> science?
Us grocery store clerks know all about science and have
no problem reseaching science results, scriptures, etc...
It all fits together. You not bothering to figure it
out, that's your choice... you could look the stuff up
too and find out that it's legit. Or you could do as
you've done and ignore the obvious, saying it's just
too unlikely.
For me though, Genesis 1 nails it.
You probably don't have a clue about this... but there's
this software techneque called CRC's (Cylic Redundency Check)
that's used to verify incoming data. The CRC is typically
32 bits... the end result of using the CRC is that you know
with assurance that the data received is correct if the CRC
matches what's been sent for a CRC value, all the previous
data in a "frame" being manipulated to generate a CRC to
check against the final CRC sent to be verified with.
Notice the 32 bits... it gives assurance to about 4.3 billion
to one that the data was correctly sent if the CRC matches.
The data could still be wrong, but it's very unlikely.
They use such CRC's all over the place, it's pretty common
and people then trust the data when the CRC matches, saying
it's just too unlikely that the data was wrong.
The problem for you Eric is that Genesis 1, just looking
at the TIMING of the events, it's correctly given with odds
of 208,000,000:1 and that says it's only about a factor of
20 off from what they use to verify valid data sent.
Get the picture?
What really takes the cake, is that that was ONLY for the
TIMING of the events, when the PHRASES used are included,
the odds become astronomical, well beyond anything expected
of the CRC's used to verify correct data transmission.
Genesis 1 is in effect, data that was transmitted and recieved.
The data sent was coded such that it could be verified later
after reception and the "CRC" had been calculated (creation
was studied... the correct sequence then being known).
For me, it's just that simple, the data was sent, the CRC
was calculated, it matched... and the odds of it matching
is unbelievably higher than common CRC's used to verify data
today.
It's impossible for me to doubt God, what he said matches
what his creation shows... hence he is God.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
John D. Leckie
On Sun, 20 May 2001 01:55:40 -0700, "John P. Boatwright"
John P. Boatwright
>
> John Boatwright, tell me you're not really a grocery store clerk.
No way, that would be lying.
John P. Boatwright
>
> John D. Leckie wrote:
> >
> > John Boatwright, tell me you're not really a grocery store clerk.
>
> No way, that would be lying.
OK, OK... a bit more detail.
The atheists tracked me down to a grocery store in Florida.
Seriously, they ranted on and on about it... produce section,
fruits and nuts... I guess I'm a manager there.
Anyway, they were pretty sure of it, so ya, they're right,
I am a grocery store clerk... have a resume around here
somewhere that proves it... maybe... OK, it's a stretch
that I still have the resume, that was at 17, but I might
still have it... if not just write another one.
As for Florida... well, you saw the election, Bush EASILY
won and I did vote for him... registered Republican and
would vote for him again... he's won over 300 times in the
last year and I voted for him each and every time they
redid the election (I knew Gore would lose, he'd lost all
the couple hundred times during 2000, so it's a foregone
conclusion that he'd continue to lose the next 300 times
this year as well).
Anyway, the atheists tracked me down and I knew it was futile
to argue about it.
Yes, I'm a grocery store clerk, I admit it.
Elroy Willis
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
>> John D. Leckie wrote:
>>> John Boatwright, tell me you're not really a grocery store clerk.
>> No way, that would be lying.
> OK, OK... a bit more detail.
> The atheists tracked me down to a grocery store in Florida.
> Seriously, they ranted on and on about it... produce section,
> fruits and nuts... I guess I'm a manager there.
You certainly fit right in with the fruits and nuts.
--
Sir Elroy - BAAWA Knight
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
One man's absurdity is another man's religion.
Paul Duca
Elroy Willis wrote:
> John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > John P. Boatwright wrote:
> >> John D. Leckie wrote:
>
> >>> John Boatwright, tell me you're not really a grocery store clerk.
>
> >> No way, that would be lying.
>
> > OK, OK... a bit more detail.
>
> > The atheists tracked me down to a grocery store in Florida.
>
> > Seriously, they ranted on and on about it... produce section,
> > fruits and nuts... I guess I'm a manager there.
>
> You certainly fit right in with the fruits and nuts.
>
>
Boatright says he's just a grocery store clerk...doesn't that
fly in the face of his claims that God and Jesus bless their followers?
Shouldn't John be an important, well-paid professional man with a big
house and fancy car, all rewards for serving the Lord?
Paul
Elroy Willis
Well, Jesus mows my lawn every Thursday, so being a grocery store
clerk wouldn't seem to be beneath him.
John P. Boatwright
>
> Paul Duca <toms...@mediaone.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Elroy Willis wrote:
> >> John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.com> wrote in alt.atheism
> >>> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> >>>> John D. Leckie wrote:
>
> >>>>> John Boatwright, tell me you're not really a grocery store clerk.
>
> >>>> No way, that would be lying.
>
> >>> OK, OK... a bit more detail.
>
> >>> The atheists tracked me down to a grocery store in Florida.
>
> >>> Seriously, they ranted on and on about it... produce section,
> >>> fruits and nuts... I guess I'm a manager there.
>
> >> You certainly fit right in with the fruits and nuts.
>
> > Boatright says he's just a grocery store clerk...doesn't that
> > fly in the face of his claims that God and Jesus bless their followers?
> > Shouldn't John be an important, well-paid professional man with a big
> > house and fancy car, all rewards for serving the Lord?
The important ones in the store work the cash register,
from the back room.
Produce ain't that far away...
> Well, Jesus mows my lawn every Thursday, so being a grocery store
> clerk wouldn't seem to be beneath him.
You wish.
Johnny Bravo
<na...@For-God.com> wrote:
>The problem for you Eric is that Genesis 1, just looking
>at the TIMING of the events, it's correctly given with odds
>of 208,000,000:1 and that says it's only about a factor of
>20 off from what they use to verify valid data sent.
>
>Get the picture?
No. Plants did not appear before the sun.
Guess your bible fails even a basic CRC.
You lose, your fantasy fails yet again you mendacious fuckwit.
--
Best Wishes,
Johnny Bravo
BAAWA Knight, EAC - Temporal Adjustments Division
Ordained Minister - Universal Life Church
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - HP Lovecraft
Yang
<na...@For-God.com> wrote:
>Bored With The Boring Again wrote:
>> Why do you believe in all that bullshit you try to pass off to us as
>> science?
>
>Us grocery store clerks know all about science and have
>no problem reseaching science results, scriptures, etc...
Of course you don't:
"Proto star? Like that hard as nails Jupiter that you said was a
fluffy gas ball??? Too funny. Jupiter is SOLID, just view the
Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet impacts ON THE SURFACE!!! Astronomers just
don't keep up."
J. B. Boatwright
John P. Boatwright
>
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 01:55:40 -0700, "John P. Boatwright"
> <na...@For-God.com> wrote:
>
> >The problem for you Eric is that Genesis 1, just looking
> >at the TIMING of the events, it's correctly given with odds
> >of 208,000,000:1 and that says it's only about a factor of
> >20 off from what they use to verify valid data sent.
> >
> >Get the picture?
>
> No. Plants did not appear before the sun.
See them showing that cell walls could form in SPACE, all
the organics were there too.
You lose.
> Guess your bible fails even a basic CRC.
Nope, they had NO TERM for single cell photosynthetic life
which they ADMIT would be the first form of life that would
show up.
Again, you lose.
Yang
<na...@For-God.com> wrote:
>Elroy Willis wrote:
>>
>> Paul Duca <toms...@mediaone.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> > Elroy Willis wrote:
>> >> John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >>> John P. Boatwright wrote:
>> >>>> John D. Leckie wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> John Boatwright, tell me you're not really a grocery store clerk.
>>
>> >>>> No way, that would be lying.
>>
>> >>> OK, OK... a bit more detail.
>>
>> >>> The atheists tracked me down to a grocery store in Florida.
>>
>> >>> Seriously, they ranted on and on about it... produce section,
>> >>> fruits and nuts... I guess I'm a manager there.
>>
>> >> You certainly fit right in with the fruits and nuts.
>>
>> > Boatright says he's just a grocery store clerk...doesn't that
>> > fly in the face of his claims that God and Jesus bless their followers?
>> > Shouldn't John be an important, well-paid professional man with a big
>> > house and fancy car, all rewards for serving the Lord?
>
>The important ones in the store work the cash register,
>from the back room.
So what did your book say about bearing false witness?
John P. Boatwright
I'm a store clerk, yangy boy... the atheists found out.
I couldn't argue with 'em, they were right...
Yep, I remember writing the resume, grocery store clerk,
right about 17 or so...
Oh well, life goes on.
Clayton Forno
"John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.com> wrote in message
The only thing running circles is the little mouse running in the wheel that
powers your brain.
Are you actually capable of understanding how big of a fucking idiot you
are?
Do you really believe you are this genius you seem to think that you
are...or did the other people in your adult special ed class just vote you
"Mista Smmart Persun"?
Seek help you raving loony!!
Johnny Bravo
<na...@For-God.com> wrote:
>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 20 May 2001 01:55:40 -0700, "John P. Boatwright"
>> <na...@For-God.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The problem for you Eric is that Genesis 1, just looking
>> >at the TIMING of the events, it's correctly given with odds
>> >of 208,000,000:1 and that says it's only about a factor of
>> >20 off from what they use to verify valid data sent.
>> >
>> >Get the picture?
>>
>> No. Plants did not appear before the sun.
>
>See them showing that cell walls could form in SPACE, all
>the organics were there too.
>
>You lose.
Cell walls don't use photosynthesis without light.
You are wrong yet again, though that has never bothered you before.
>> Guess your bible fails even a basic CRC.
>
>Nope, they had NO TERM for single cell photosynthetic life
>which they ADMIT would be the first form of life that would
>show up.
Which did not form before the first stars did. Yet another loss for
you, but why spoil that perfect record.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> John P. Boatwright wrote:
>>> John D. Leckie wrote:
>
>>>> John Boatwright, tell me you're not really a grocery store clerk.
>
>>> No way, that would be lying.
>
>> OK, OK... a bit more detail.
>
>> The atheists tracked me down to a grocery store in Florida.
>
>> Seriously, they ranted on and on about it... produce section,
>> fruits and nuts... I guess I'm a manager there.
>
>You certainly fit right in with the fruits and nuts.
But he's not managing very well.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
John P. Boatwright
>
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 12:46:18 -0700, "John P. Boatwright"
> <na...@For-God.com> wrote:
>
> >Johnny Bravo wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 20 May 2001 01:55:40 -0700, "John P. Boatwright"
> >> <na...@For-God.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The problem for you Eric is that Genesis 1, just looking
> >> >at the TIMING of the events, it's correctly given with odds
> >> >of 208,000,000:1 and that says it's only about a factor of
> >> >20 off from what they use to verify valid data sent.
> >> >
> >> >Get the picture?
> >>
> >> No. Plants did not appear before the sun.
> >
> >See them showing that cell walls could form in SPACE, all
> >the organics were there too.
> >
> >You lose.
>
> Cell walls don't use photosynthesis without light.
Who said there was no light?
See SN1987A, Eta Carina, etc... how else do you expect them
to be able to see exploded stars unless there's light from them?
eh?
Sheeze...
> You are wrong yet again, though that has never bothered you before.
You wish.
HOW do you think they can see exploded stars... if you're claiming
there's no light?
> >> Guess your bible fails even a basic CRC.
> >
> >Nope, they had NO TERM for single cell photosynthetic life
> >which they ADMIT would be the first form of life that would
> >show up.
>
> Which did not form before the first stars did. Yet another loss for
> you, but why spoil that perfect record.
ah ah ah...
Genesis said "let there be light" >>> BEFORE <<< the "plants".
That "pre-sun" star lit up, heavier elements formed ABOVE the
surface of the NEW star (see the Chandra report for Nov 2000,
NEW stars burning VERY bright BEFORE the inner core begins it's
fusion), those heavier elements exploded out... cell walls
formed in space along with the organics already there from
the explosion of the star, etc...
What, you think stuff just magic'd here?
ha ha ha...
Once that "pre-sun" star exploded, all the stuff needed to
form life was then shot out from it... and God starts
forming planets from the regathering matter, single cell
photosynthetic life being formed in space, then ending up
being dumped on the planet earth as the regathering matter
continues to impact earth... the land rising out of the
"waters" or seas.
It all fits, every last detail given in Genesis fits with
what has to occur for our solar system to form as seen.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
John D. Leckie
<na...@For-God.com> wrote:
I was a grocery store clerk at 17, too. Tell us, John, what do you do
NOW? No silliness-- Try to answer the question honestly. No bearing
false witness. I'm asking you a direct question.
*Sits back and waits to see what happens*
This should be good.
John D. Leckie
wrote:
That cracks me up EVERY TIME. He really SAID that? Bwahahahahahaha!
The convenient thing is no one can correct him on this because his god
had it all figured out before the scientists were even created, right?
Hehehehhehe.
John Boaty, would you mind explaining this quote? Did you really say
this, and if you did, how do you explain yourself now?
Boatwright, the champion of christianity that christians pretend they
don't know...
Bored With The Boring Again
What are you trying to do, boaty? Go into competition with L Ron
Hubbard?
?
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
Awarded title of "Defacto CLuM" by "kansan" 2001-05-12
======
Remove god to respond.
======
At one point in time, many of us actually had Jesus as
our personal lord and saviour. Unfortunately, we later
had to dismiss him for incompetence, gross negligence,
misconduct and consistent failure to show up for work.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>> John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> John P. Boatwright wrote:
>>>> John D. Leckie wrote:
>>>>> John Boatwright, tell me you're not really a grocery store clerk.
>>>> No way, that would be lying.
>>> OK, OK... a bit more detail.
>>> The atheists tracked me down to a grocery store in Florida.
>>> Seriously, they ranted on and on about it... produce section,
>>> fruits and nuts... I guess I'm a manager there.
>> You certainly fit right in with the fruits and nuts.
> But he's not managing very well.
How hard is it to manage a bunch of fruits and nuts?
STD DIALUP
: <na...@For-God.com> wrote:
: "Proto star? Like that hard as nails Jupiter that you said was a
: fluffy gas ball??? Too funny. Jupiter is SOLID, just view the
: Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet impacts ON THE SURFACE!!! Astronomers just
: don't keep up."
: J. B. Boatwright
Two solid items exist within this universe. Jupiter & your head.
Bored With The Boring Again
wrote:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>>> John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>> John P. Boatwright wrote:
>>>>> John D. Leckie wrote:
>
>>>>>> John Boatwright, tell me you're not really a grocery store clerk.
>
>>>>> No way, that would be lying.
>
>>>> OK, OK... a bit more detail.
>
>>>> The atheists tracked me down to a grocery store in Florida.
>
>>>> Seriously, they ranted on and on about it... produce section,
>>>> fruits and nuts... I guess I'm a manager there.
>
>>> You certainly fit right in with the fruits and nuts.
>
>> But he's not managing very well.
>
>How hard is it to manage a bunch of fruits and nuts?
Pretty difficult when you are one of them. ;-) Oh, and let's not
insult the fruits, boaty is not gay. He is a gerbophile.
Wayne Bagguley
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 20 May 2001 12:46:18 -0700, "John P. Boatwright"
> > <na...@For-God.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Johnny Bravo wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, 20 May 2001 01:55:40 -0700, "John P. Boatwright"
> > >> <na...@For-God.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >The problem for you Eric is that Genesis 1, just looking
> > >> >at the TIMING of the events, it's correctly given with odds
> > >> >of 208,000,000:1 and that says it's only about a factor of
> > >> >20 off from what they use to verify valid data sent.
> > >> >
> > >> >Get the picture?
> > >>
> > >> No. Plants did not appear before the sun.
> > >
> > >See them showing that cell walls could form in SPACE, all
> > >the organics were there too.
> > >
> > >You lose.
> >
> > Cell walls don't use photosynthesis without light.
>
> Who said there was no light?
>
> See SN1987A, Eta Carina, etc... how else do you expect them
> to be able to see exploded stars unless there's light from them?
SN1987A is 12 million light years away. With the unaided eye you'd
probably expect about 6 photons per second to reach your retina.
This is not enough for photosynthesis.
> eh?
>
> Sheeze...
Exactly!
> > You are wrong yet again, though that has never bothered you before.
>
> You wish.
He wishes and he is right.
> HOW do you think they can see exploded stars... if you're claiming
> there's no light?
There's not enought light from any stars outside the solar system to
sustain photosynthesis.
> > >> Guess your bible fails even a basic CRC.
> > >
> > >Nope, they had NO TERM for single cell photosynthetic life
> > >which they ADMIT would be the first form of life that would
> > >show up.
> >
> > Which did not form before the first stars did. Yet another loss for
> > you, but why spoil that perfect record.
>
> ah ah ah...
tchoo, bless you.
> Genesis said "let there be light" >>> BEFORE <<< the "plants".
But after the earth was formed. Which is not what science tells us.
> That "pre-sun" star lit up, heavier elements formed ABOVE the
> surface of the NEW star (see the Chandra report for Nov 2000,
> NEW stars burning VERY bright BEFORE the inner core begins it's
> fusion), those heavier elements exploded out... cell walls
> formed in space along with the organics already there from
> the explosion of the star, etc...
>
> What, you think stuff just magic'd here?
No. But you think that god just magic'd it there.
> ha ha ha...
Indeed.
> Once that "pre-sun" star exploded, all the stuff needed to
> form life was then shot out from it... and God starts
> forming planets
Not gravity? You mean that god magic'd the planets?
> from the regathering matter, single cell
> photosynthetic life being formed in space,
Impossible. Photosynthesis requires carbon dioxide and
water (amongst other things). There's not enough of these
available locally even in the most dense gas clouds in space.
They would have no way of obtaining the raw materials that
they need and they would soon suffocate because the oxygen
they produce would surround them. They would also not have
any protection from radiation. Their DNA would not be
able to survive.
> then ending up
> being dumped on the planet earth
Only on earth? Was it dumped on other bodies too? Is any of
this photosynthetic life still floating around in space?
> as the regathering matter
> continues to impact earth... the land rising out of the
> "waters" or seas.
How did the water stay in liquid form when the impacts would have
raised the surface temperature to above the boiling point?
> It all fits, every last detail given in Genesis fits with
> what has to occur for our solar system to form as seen.
Does not.
-
Wayne
Wayne Bagguley
> I was a grocery store clerk at 17, too. Tell us, John, what do you do
> NOW? No silliness-- Try to answer the question honestly. No bearing
> false witness. I'm asking you a direct question.
>
> *Sits back and waits to see what happens*
>
> This should be good.
He works for a company called Salad Engineering in Hillsboro.
http://www.teleport.com/~salad
I think he must be the tea boy.
-
Wayne
John D. Leckie
his amusing links and just go back to the parent directory.
I suspect that he IS salad engineering, actually. If he can post
stuff like that to the same webspact taken up by his so-called
"company," and he's still IN the company, he must BE the company.
Otherwise, any sane company would have thrown him out. :)
But I'd like to hear it from him, if that's the case. Still waiting
to hear what Boaty really does...
On 22 May 2001 02:25:07 -0700, snow...@snowbird.freeserve.co.uk
Bored With The Boring Again
wrote:
>Well, yes, this conclusion is easy to reach if you just follow one of
>his amusing links and just go back to the parent directory.
>
>I suspect that he IS salad engineering, actually. If he can post
>stuff like that to the same webspact taken up by his so-called
>"company," and he's still IN the company, he must BE the company.
>Otherwise, any sane company would have thrown him out. :)
>
>But I'd like to hear it from him, if that's the case. Still waiting
>to hear what Boaty really does...
One job a year and spends the rest of the time in alt.atheism making a
total ass of himself?
John D. Leckie
With The Boring Again") wrote:
>On Tue, 22 May 2001 19:09:37 +0200, John D. Leckie <igh...@yahoo.de>
>wrote:
>
>>Well, yes, this conclusion is easy to reach if you just follow one of
>>his amusing links and just go back to the parent directory.
>>
>>I suspect that he IS salad engineering, actually. If he can post
>>stuff like that to the same webspact taken up by his so-called
>>"company," and he's still IN the company, he must BE the company.
>>Otherwise, any sane company would have thrown him out. :)
>>
>>But I'd like to hear it from him, if that's the case. Still waiting
>>to hear what Boaty really does...
>
>One job a year and spends the rest of the time in alt.atheism making a
>total ass of himself?
>
Well, if I don't hear from him sometime soon I'll assume that, but
I'll always wonder... :)
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Well, Jesus mows my lawn every Thursday, so being a grocery store
>> clerk wouldn't seem to be beneath him.
> You wish.
A grocery store clerk would be a step up, wouldn't it?
John P. Boatwright
>
> On Tue, 22 May 2001 19:09:37 +0200, John D. Leckie <igh...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, yes, this conclusion is easy to reach if you just follow one of
> >his amusing links and just go back to the parent directory.
Ya, but what if it's a fake?
You know how atheists are really skeptical and such, probably
you should be going with the "grocery store clerk" as that's
what the atheists claimed after tracking me down...
What, you think atheists would lie about it? It was posted
DAILY, the atheists rambling on and on about it.
Best bet is: grocery store clerk in Florida.
Yep, atheists are NEVER wrong, their skeptisism pays
off again and again, always believing what their DOUBT
allows them to believe.
> >I suspect that he IS salad engineering, actually. If he can post
> >stuff like that to the same webspact taken up by his so-called
> >"company," and he's still IN the company, he must BE the company.
> >Otherwise, any sane company would have thrown him out. :)
Ya, and probably wouldn't allow such and such to work
on state of the art stuff either... would you let a
grocery store clerk do that?
... certainly not.
So maybe the site was hacked?
> >But I'd like to hear it from him, if that's the case. Still waiting
> >to hear what Boaty really does...
It's on my resume somewhere around here, grocery store clerk,
I have to admit it, it's the truth.
> One job a year and spends the rest of the time in alt.atheism making a
> total ass of himself?
I simply said the truth, God exists and did what he said he did.
Which doesn't depend one whit on whether or not someone
is a grocery store clerk in Florida.
The Ghost In The Machine
<fire...@god.airmail.net>
wrote
on Tue, 22 May 2001 03:22:15 GMT
<C9524E2D656E60F0.F7EDA418...@lp.airnews.net>:
>On Mon, 21 May 2001 20:24:31 -0500, Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>>>> John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>> John P. Boatwright wrote:
>>>>>> John D. Leckie wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> John Boatwright, tell me you're not really a grocery store clerk.
>>
>>>>>> No way, that would be lying.
>>
>>>>> OK, OK... a bit more detail.
>>
>>>>> The atheists tracked me down to a grocery store in Florida.
>>
>>>>> Seriously, they ranted on and on about it... produce section,
>>>>> fruits and nuts... I guess I'm a manager there.
>>
>>>> You certainly fit right in with the fruits and nuts.
>>
>>> But he's not managing very well.
>>
>>How hard is it to manage a bunch of fruits and nuts?
>
>Pretty difficult when you are one of them. ;-) Oh, and let's not
>insult the fruits, boaty is not gay. He is a gerbophile.
Is that fear of gerbils, or did you mean "germophile", fear of germs? :-)
Assuming I'm phrasing that correctly....
(BTW: dumb question for Boaty: why were germs put on this Earth?)
[.sigsnip]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random question here
EAC code #191 26d:03h:08m actually running Linux.
This is a pithy statement. Please watch where you pith.
John D. Leckie
you refuse to state clearly what you do for a living RIGHT NOW.
Why is that?
Let's pretend that these atheists and their "tracking" skills never
existed. What do you do? Pretend you have no point to make about
your contempt for atheists. Let's say I'm just a guy in a coffee
shop, furthermore, a RELIGIOUS guy, asking you offhandedly what you
do. What would you say to me?
You admit that "grocery store clerk" appears on your resume. Very
well. I admitted to the same. Hey, I was even 17 years old, too! WE
have something in common! None of this posturing says anything about
what you do now. I'm just very curious as to your job, to say nothing
of your educational background, if any. After all, to understand the
cosmos on the level that you do requires some serious education
outside the bible, I think.
What was your take, by the way, on the traces of Lithium in a
smattering of stars within the globular cluster M-13? I wondered how
your theories would apply to that situation. If this confuses you
just ignore it. That's what you seem to do most of the time, anyway.
Seen the recent "face on mars" photos that NASA released? What do you
think of those?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm?list155699
I was surprised not to see the "face" in some of your other works on
your enlightening website. Did I miss it? If you can see Jesus and
Mary and, haha, Israel in some of those other pictures, surely you can
see Christ in the face on Mars...?
Anyway, feel free to cut to the chase anytime and fill us in on what
the man who understands SO much does to feed himself. I think it has
some bearing here, given some of the "scientific" claims you make in
these forums.
John
John P. Boatwright
>
> >From: John D. Leckie igh...@yahoo.de
> >Date: 5/26/01 2:20 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <lgvvgtg3fusabbtte...@4ax.com>
> >
> >So, John, all this witty stuff below basically boils down to this--
> >you refuse to state clearly what you do for a living RIGHT NOW.
> >
> >Why is that?
>
> know. That's the way he is. He'd love to find out about YOU,
I've seen the "John D. Leckie" name a couple of times now,
so it really seems a bit presumptious that you'd say that.
> but doesn't want you to know about him. Kinda strange, but that
> shouldn't suprise anyone. I will say this much though, he is not
> a grocery store clerk.
Bulloona.
It's on my resume: grocery store clerk.
I'd be lying if I denied being one.
As for work having much to do with a discussion about
God existing... what someone does for work has about NIL
for effect on that discussion.
Science has been around for what... only a few centuries,
degrees and such, even less time. Can science or degrees,
even what someone does for work, can that make or break
the fact that God exists?
No, it can't... it has NO effect.
So yes, the atheists were right, I'm a grocery store clerk
and it didn't have ANY effect on the discussion. All those
WILD claims about people needing degrees, needing to be scientists,
needing to be this or that... just to give "credit" to a
discussion of God existing... it doesn't matter... God exists.
God's own statements, his own words prove that he is the
source of his creation.
John P. Boatwright
>
> John P. Boatwright (hamste...@ductape.com) wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Elroy Willis wrote:
>
> >> Well, Jesus mows my lawn every Thursday, so being a grocery store
> >> clerk wouldn't seem to be beneath him.
>
> > You wish.
>
> A grocery store clerk would be a step up, wouldn't it?
Landscape companies make incredible amounts of money,
at least I've heard they do on the professional level.
You tell me.
As for BT and him crediting God, let's review what the
CD says, right there on the inside:
-------------------------------------------------------
GREAT THANKS AND GRATITUDE TO:
God for the music and synchronicity, Dominique, ...
(about 20 more lines of people he thanks)
- BT "Movement in still life"
-------------------------------------------------------
Now, notice who BT thanked FIRST...
Ya.
God was thanked FIRST.
Bored With The Boring Again
Gerbophile -- an unhealthy sexual attraction towards gerbils (and
other small rodents).
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> John P. Boatwright (hamste...@ductape.com) wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Elroy Willis wrote:
>>>> Well, Jesus mows my lawn every Thursday, so being a grocery store
>>>> clerk wouldn't seem to be beneath him.
>>> You wish.
>> A grocery store clerk would be a step up, wouldn't it?
> Landscape companies make incredible amounts of money,
> at least I've heard they do on the professional level.
You can haggle about the price in most cases. Don't take
their first bid.
> You tell me.
What?
> As for BT
BT?
> and him crediting God, let's review what the
> CD says, right there on the inside:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> GREAT THANKS AND GRATITUDE TO:
> God for the music and synchronicity, Dominique, ...
> (about 20 more lines of people he thanks)
> - BT "Movement in still life"
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Now, notice who BT thanked FIRST...
> Ya.
> God was thanked FIRST.
WTF are you talking about?
John P. Boatwright
>
> John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Elroy Willis wrote:
> >> John P. Boatwright (hamste...@ductape.com) wrote in alt.atheism
> >>> Elroy Willis wrote:
>
> >>>> Well, Jesus mows my lawn every Thursday, so being a grocery store
> >>>> clerk wouldn't seem to be beneath him.
>
> >>> You wish.
>
> >> A grocery store clerk would be a step up, wouldn't it?
>
> > Landscape companies make incredible amounts of money,
> > at least I've heard they do on the professional level.
>
> You can haggle about the price in most cases. Don't take
> their first bid.
Nor the first company bidding...
> > You tell me.
>
> What?
You were saying you thought landscapers would be stepping
up to be grocery store clerks.
> > As for BT
>
> BT?
Ya.
> > and him crediting God, let's review what the
> > CD says, right there on the inside:
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > GREAT THANKS AND GRATITUDE TO:
>
> > God for the music and synchronicity, Dominique, ...
>
> > (about 20 more lines of people he thanks)
>
> > - BT "Movement in still life"
> > -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Now, notice who BT thanked FIRST...
>
> > Ya.
>
> > God was thanked FIRST.
>
> WTF are you talking about?
It's on the guy's CD, inside... but with you being a Hank
Williams fan, it's somewhat doubtful you know who BT is.
John P. Boatwright
>
> >From: "John P. Boatwright" na...@For-God.net
> >Date: 5/26/01 5:27 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <3B102D...@For-God.net>
> >
> >JulieKale wrote:
> >>
> >> >From: John D. Leckie igh...@yahoo.de
> >> >Date: 5/26/01 2:20 PM Central Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: <lgvvgtg3fusabbtte...@4ax.com>
> >> >
> >> >So, John, all this witty stuff below basically boils down to this--
> >> >you refuse to state clearly what you do for a living RIGHT NOW.
> >> >
> >> >Why is that?
> >>
> >> It's a privacy issue with him, gone overboard. He just don't want people to
> >> know. That's the way he is. He'd love to find out about YOU,
> >
> >I've seen the "John D. Leckie" name a couple of times now,
> >so it really seems a bit presumptious that you'd say that.
>
Ya.
> <snip>
>
> >So yes, the atheists were right, I'm a grocery store clerk
> >and it didn't have ANY effect on the discussion. All those
> >WILD claims about people needing degrees, needing to be scientists,
> >needing to be this or that... just to give "credit" to a
> >discussion of God existing... it doesn't matter... God exists.
>
> Well the rest of us have these things calls standards. We like our information
> to come from someone who knows what they're talking about. If Carl Sagan saw
> jesus in the cloud nebula I might be impressed. But you...well that's a
> different thing entirely...
ha ha ha...
Carl Sagan is DEAD!
Darn right you'd be impressed. :)
Regardless, I seriously doubt you'd believe even Sagan, you'd
say he was a nut case for believing God, and that otherwise, he
was just fine doing what he did for work.
There's a HUGE scale out there, and you're trying to fill that
scale with people and evidence, trying to say whether or not
God is there based on what others think, what others said. You
can't put everyone and everything in the the world in that scale,
it's too much for you to consider.
Instead, you should be focusing on what God said, since what
he said clearly shows that he knew it all, and that he is God.
The Ghost In The Machine
<1F033FB5520C1102.FE108027...@lp.airnews.net>:
Oops, my bad; I read it as "gerbophobia".
My brain needs food bad.
[.sigsnip]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- and no, Jesus crackers and grape juice don't count
EAC code #191 26d:22h:41m actually running Linux.
The Internet routes around censorship.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Elroy Willis wrote:
>>>> John P. Boatwright (hamste...@ductape.com) wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>> Elroy Willis wrote:
>>>>>> Well, Jesus mows my lawn every Thursday, so being a grocery store
>>>>>> clerk wouldn't seem to be beneath him.
>>>>> You wish.
>>>> A grocery store clerk would be a step up, wouldn't it?
>>> Landscape companies make incredible amounts of money,
>>> at least I've heard they do on the professional level.
>> You can haggle about the price in most cases. Don't take
>> their first bid.
> Nor the first company bidding...
Jesus tried to raise the price again this year. I haggled my way
to 1/2 of the increase he proposed. :-)
>>> You tell me.
>> What?
> You were saying you thought landscapers would be stepping
> up to be grocery store clerks.
Would you rather sweat out in the summer heat mowing a lawn
or be inside a nice air-conditioned grocery store hanging out around
the fruits and nuts?
>>> As for BT
>> BT?
> Ya.
>>> Now, notice who BT thanked FIRST...
>>> Ya.
>>> God was thanked FIRST.
>> WTF are you talking about?
> It's on the guy's CD, inside... but with you being a Hank
> Williams fan, it's somewhat doubtful you know who BT is.
I'm not a Hank Wiliams fan. I don't particularly like country music.
I admit I didn't know who BT is. I did a web search and read up on
him. So what if he thanked god first? I had a co-worker thank god
when we worked together to get a program working. Does that mean
that god exists?
Bored With The Boring Again
Drink a couple of Guinnesses. ;-)
Bored With The Boring Again
<na...@For-God.net> wrote:
[===]
>Science has been around for what... only a few centuries,
>degrees and such, even less time. Can science or degrees,
>even what someone does for work, can that make or break
>the fact that God exists?
>
>No, it can't... it has NO effect.
>
>So yes, the atheists were right, I'm a grocery store clerk
>and it didn't have ANY effect on the discussion. All those
>WILD claims about people needing degrees, needing to be scientists,
>needing to be this or that... just to give "credit" to a
>discussion of God existing... it doesn't matter... God exists.
>
>God's own statements, his own words prove that he is the
>source of his creation.
>
>God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
You have never proven that this god thingy of yours exists. Until you
do that (and I may well die of old age before that happens), why
should I believe -anything- you say?
You see, before you can go any further with this god business of
yours, we will remain stuck at the level of "show me your god", and
you will remain the laughingstock of a.a. and probably the christian
groups you infest as well.
John P. Boatwright
>
> John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Elroy Willis wrote:
> >> John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.net> wrote in alt.atheism
> >>> Elroy Willis wrote:
> >>>> John P. Boatwright (hamste...@ductape.com) wrote in alt.atheism
> >>>>> Elroy Willis wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Well, Jesus mows my lawn every Thursday, so being a grocery store
> >>>>>> clerk wouldn't seem to be beneath him.
>
> >>>>> You wish.
>
> >>>> A grocery store clerk would be a step up, wouldn't it?
>
> >>> Landscape companies make incredible amounts of money,
> >>> at least I've heard they do on the professional level.
>
> >> You can haggle about the price in most cases. Don't take
> >> their first bid.
>
> > Nor the first company bidding...
>
> Jesus tried to raise the price again this year. I haggled my way
> to 1/2 of the increase he proposed. :-)
Ya right.
> >>> You tell me.
>
> >> What?
>
> > You were saying you thought landscapers would be stepping
> > up to be grocery store clerks.
>
> Would you rather sweat out in the summer heat mowing a lawn
> or be inside a nice air-conditioned grocery store hanging out around
> the fruits and nuts?
Both have advantages.
Hmm... that's a tough one to decide.
> >>> As for BT
>
> >> BT?
>
> > Ya.
>
> >>> Now, notice who BT thanked FIRST...
>
> >>> Ya.
>
> >>> God was thanked FIRST.
>
> >> WTF are you talking about?
>
> > It's on the guy's CD, inside... but with you being a Hank
> > Williams fan, it's somewhat doubtful you know who BT is.
>
> I'm not a Hank Wiliams fan. I don't particularly like country music.
Must have confused you with someone else.
> I admit I didn't know who BT is. I did a web search and read up on
> him. So what if he thanked god first? I had a co-worker thank god
> when we worked together to get a program working. Does that mean
> that god exists?
Did you code it into the splash screen when the program starts up?
Actually, to be like BT, you'd have to put it in one of the
menu selections, just as they're going for the core results from
the program.
Anyway, God exists, see BT's CD, it's stated there plain as day.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>> Now, notice who BT thanked FIRST...
>> Ya.
>> God was thanked FIRST.
>WTF are you talking about?
Nothing. Which is the same thing he always talks about.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
Paul Duca
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
> JulieKale wrote:
> >
> > >From: John D. Leckie igh...@yahoo.de
> > >Date: 5/26/01 2:20 PM Central Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: <lgvvgtg3fusabbtte...@4ax.com>
> > >
> > >So, John, all this witty stuff below basically boils down to this--
> > >you refuse to state clearly what you do for a living RIGHT NOW.
> > >
> > >Why is that?
> >
> > It's a privacy issue with him, gone overboard. He just don't want people to
> > know. That's the way he is. He'd love to find out about YOU,
>
> I've seen the "John D. Leckie" name a couple of times now,
> so it really seems a bit presumptious that you'd say that.
>
> > but doesn't want you to know about him. Kinda strange, but that
> > shouldn't suprise anyone. I will say this much though, he is not
> > a grocery store clerk.
>
> Bulloona.
>
> It's on my resume: grocery store clerk.
>
If you think so much of God and Jesus, how come THEY think so little of
you, this is the best job you can get?
Paul
John P. Boatwright
ha ha ha...
Sheeze...
===============================================
Why do theists ALWAYS have to teach atheists???
===============================================
Germs were put on the earth to do germ stuff.
Elroy Willis
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> (BTW: dumb question for Boaty: why were germs put on this Earth?)
> ha ha ha...
> Sheeze...
> ===============================================
> Why do theists ALWAYS have to teach atheists???
> ===============================================
> Germs were put on the earth to do germ stuff.
Great answer, Boaty. <cough>
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> You were saying you thought landscapers would be stepping
>>> up to be grocery store clerks.
>> Would you rather sweat out in the summer heat mowing a lawn
>> or be inside a nice air-conditioned grocery store hanging out around
>> the fruits and nuts?
> Both have advantages.
> Hmm... that's a tough one to decide.
Which one does your god think is the best? :-)
Glenn MacEachern
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> Anyway, God exists, see BT's CD, it's stated there plain as day.
Oh my...I can't be seeing this..Boaty can't be for real, seriously, he has to
be a troll..it's gone WAY too far....this has to be the dumbest statement
anybody has ever made in the history of the world...maybe I'm
exaggerating...maybe it's just that I've been gone for the weekend and forget
how things get here:P
-grm-
John P. Boatwright
>
> "John P. Boatwright" wrote:
It's on the CD, well, on the back of the little booklet
thingy in the case:
-------------------------------------------------------
GREAT THANKS AND GRATITUDE TO:
God for the music and synchronicity, Dominique, ...
(about 20 more lines of people he thanks)
- BT "Movement in still life"
-------------------------------------------------------
Now, notice who BT thanked FIRST...
Ya.
God was thanked FIRST.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
John D. Leckie
Thank you, John, for treating us to a wonderful tap-dance!
Oh yeah, you keep telling yourself this BS, John. The fact is you
don't want potential customers to know how kooky you are. As
confident as you like to SEEM about all that nonsense, you have OTHER
reasons for not revealing it openly that have NOTHING to do with
profit. Please. Read on.
"don't want to profit from God being right," indeed. That's an
interesting angle... You really need to keep telling yourself this,
don't you? Do you have any IDEA how positively WEAK that EXCUSE is?
I know you like to SAY we atheists are idiots, but come now. We are
NOT that foolish...
What about Proselytizing, John? You have such a wealth of information
there, and you completely FAIL to share the goodness of God's word
(BACKED BY SCIENCE AND GREAT ILLUSTRATIONS!) with people who get to
your website because they're looking for your services... Think of the
potential converts. It's an elementary form of directing traffic in
that direction. You would NOT be profiting from God's word, John.
You would be showing the light to so many other people!
You say that since you SPEW on usenet that it cannot be said that you
aren't openly speaking your mind. I think you know that the
percentage of people who casually use the internet who ALSO use usenet
is relatively small. Besides, the MORE people you can share this
with, the better, right? It's amazing to me that someone would have
to talk you into just one little link on your site that points to the
stuff that REALLY matters in life. Your God.
Furthermore, I have seen many, MANY private sites for small businesses
that have that cute little Jesus fish in the corner... most people
WANT you to know they are Christian because we ALL know you can TRUST
a Christian, right? Well, you can really one-up these people,
Boatwright! Forget the fish! You can show them your EVIDENCE, John!
This is such a waste of potential!
You should feel GUILTY, John, for letting your (deep-seated,
repressed, denial-laden) embarassment over your "evidence" keep you
from sharing your true feelings with people who come to your site.
Don't you WANT them to know that you're not ONLY a Christian, but one
with more powerful evidence than the average Christian?
How important, really, is your God to you? Not very, from the looks
of things. Tsk tsk.
Come, now, John, this EXCUSE does not wash with me. Not that it would
matter to you. What I think does not matter. And, as you so aptly
show here every day, what other people think does not matter to you.
Someone with your mind had better be thick-skinned. Poor guy.
BUT--
It's your GOD that you will have to deal with on THIS one, John.
Think about that. Hard. Till it hurts. You know I'm right.
On Sat, 26 May 2001 18:39:04 -0700, "John P. Boatwright"
<na...@For-God.net> wrote:
>Bored With The Boring Again wrote:
>>
>> On 26 May 2001 20:35:36 GMT, iro...@cs.comjunk (JulieKale) wrote:
>>
>> >>From: John D. Leckie igh...@yahoo.de
>> >>Date: 5/26/01 2:20 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >>Message-id: <lgvvgtg3fusabbtte...@4ax.com>
>> >>
>> >>So, John, all this witty stuff below basically boils down to this--
>> >>you refuse to state clearly what you do for a living RIGHT NOW.
>> >>
>> >>Why is that?
>> >
>> >It's a privacy issue with him, gone overboard. He just don't want people to
>> >know. That's the way he is. He'd love to find out about YOU, but doesn't want
>> >you to know about him. Kinda strange, but that shouldn't suprise anyone.
>> >I will say this much though, he is not a grocery store clerk.
>>
>> If you start off with one of his goofy websites, and back up, you end
>> up at a place called "Salad engineering" which touts itself as a
>> electronics design firm. You cannot get to boaty's goofy sites from
>> anyplace on the main page, so it is obvious that he isn't interested
>> in frightening off any of the firm's potential customers.
>
>Which explains posting about God being right all the
>time on usenet???
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>I couldn't care less what someone thinks about it, other
>than the fact that it's clearly obvious to me that God
>did EXACTLY what he claimed he did. Your claims about a
>site needing links to other sites...
>
>Nah.
>
>Overall, there's two aspects to it:
>
>1. I don't want to profit from God being right, and
> as you claimed just above, there's no way that
> would happen from your perception of it all, and
> the fact that it's all freely stated. Further, if
> someone agrees, I still don't want to profit from
> God being right. To me, putting a link on a work site
> leaves me wondering if I'd ever profit from it, and
> I don't want to profit in work, from God being right.
>
>2. What God said is valid on it's own merits, and NEVER
> depended on "credit" from anyone. So the "For God"
> web site is to point that out, that what God said is
> in fact right, that people can in just read what
> he said and notice that he was right all along. I
> think what God said can in fact stand on it's own,
> which it clearly does.
>
>From those two items, there are two sites. One for God,
>and another that doesn't attempt to profit from God
>being right.
>
>At the time the account was set up, the "For God" site
>was a free item, just another directory. But over time,
>it seemed like putting a separate domain name would
>work better to separate the stuff, so that's where:
>
>http://For-God.net
>
>came about which further meets item's 1 and 2 above.
>
>I already >>> KNOW <<< God exists. I have NO CHOICE in the
>matter of believing him or not... since I KNOW he's there.
>
>I do openly state that I believe him, and have no problem
>with putting up a site saying such... I just don't want
>profit from him being right. God is the one that was right,
>HE freely gave the scriptures, and he's the creator.
>
>When I go to be judged, I don't want to be in a position
>where I have to explain why I'd profit from something
>that others should have profitted from.
>
>So you see, you have NO CLAIM against the stuff as it's
>set up.
>
>I also have no quarrel with someone working for God all
>the time and being paid to do such... but that's not
>what I do... I work, and when I can, I say God was right.
>
>> In the
>> presence of people who might actually pay him money, I'll bet he is
>> able to "maintain". (although it might be a great effort for him)
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>90% of the population believes in some form of religion.
>
>Seenms like the claim would end up being about atheists
>trying to "maintain", not theists.
John P. Boatwright
>
> Thank you, John, for treating us to a wonderful tap-dance!
Ya right.
> Oh yeah, you keep telling yourself this BS, John. The fact is you
> don't want potential customers to know how kooky you are.
I couldn't care less.
I mostly work LOCALLY, so what if someone sees a "work site"
internationally??? Nobody bothers with a work site.
> As
> confident as you like to SEEM about all that nonsense, you have OTHER
> reasons for not revealing it openly that have NOTHING to do with
> profit. Please. Read on.
No, I was completely honest about it.
On each page, there is a statement saying it's all FREELY GIVEN,
that people are to judge it, to research and figure it out. I
don't want anything for the effort, it wasn't written for me, it
was written for God.
> "don't want to profit from God being right," indeed. That's an
> interesting angle... You really need to keep telling yourself this,
> don't you? Do you have any IDEA how positively WEAK that EXCUSE is?
> I know you like to SAY we atheists are idiots, but come now. We are
> NOT that foolish...
ha ha ha...
You're the one saying it guy.
> What about Proselytizing, John? You have such a wealth of information
> there, and you completely FAIL to share the goodness of God's word
> (BACKED BY SCIENCE AND GREAT ILLUSTRATIONS!) with people who get to
> your website because they're looking for your services... Think of the
> potential converts. It's an elementary form of directing traffic in
> that direction. You would NOT be profiting from God's word, John.
> You would be showing the light to so many other people!
Duh!
That's why it's posted AGAIN and AGAIN to go read the site.
I'm not hoping for someone to seeing a "work site"... that's ridiculous.
"Oh ya, you're buying bananas today??? Well then you
also need to read this verse in the bible... and
we have some other fruits too... and how about what
Paul said over in this verse... and don't you need
some milk today? Oh yes, grape fruits over there... "
ha ha ha...
Didn't Jesus kick them out of the Temple over that crud?
> You say that since you SPEW on usenet that it cannot be said that you
> aren't openly speaking your mind. I think you know that the
> percentage of people who casually use the internet who ALSO use usenet
> is relatively small.
I've said that over and over.
Ask Dan Fake, I asked as a general call to all readers, if anyone
read the ONE post, to reply that they'd read it... ONE person
replied.
There's only a few that might read any one post... many less
that might read some obscure "work site".
> Besides, the MORE people you can share this
> with, the better, right? It's amazing to me that someone would have
> to talk you into just one little link on your site that points to the
> stuff that REALLY matters in life. Your God.
ha ha ha...
There's an ENTIRE SITE and posts made daily pointing people to it.
Meanwhile, some obscure work site...
ha ha ha...
Nobody bothers guy.
And... I don't want to profit from God being right. The second I'd
put a link on a work site... that's when I'd feel like I had
profitted... from HIS own statements that were right.
I shouldn't profit one cent from God being right. But others
should get all they can from him being right... God is their
creator, they need to know him... knowing him, they will profit.
> Furthermore, I have seen many, MANY private sites for small businesses
> that have that cute little Jesus fish in the corner... most people
> WANT you to know they are Christian because we ALL know you can TRUST
> a Christian, right? Well, you can really one-up these people,
> Boatwright! Forget the fish! You can show them your EVIDENCE, John!
> This is such a waste of potential!
ha ha ha...
That's what they want to do, but for me, I don't want to
profit from God being right.
In fact, it says people can copy the site if they reference
where sections came from, or the entire stuff if it's left
intact as is.
There is NOTHING stopping anyone from finding out that God
was right all along.
Heck guy, it's in bibles HUNDREDS of years old, in MUSEUMS
all over the globe.
> You should feel GUILTY, John, for letting your (deep-seated,
> repressed, denial-laden) embarassment over your "evidence" keep you
> from sharing your true feelings with people who come to your site.
> Don't you WANT them to know that you're not ONLY a Christian, but one
> with more powerful evidence than the average Christian?
It's posted DAILY, sure there's a few times when I can't post
during the week, but heck, us grocery store clerks can't
post each and every day... but mostly, it's out there in force.
In contrast, I can't recall EVER posting that someone should see
a work site, heck that's considered to be spam and seems ridiculous
since I mostly only work locally.
> How important, really, is your God to you? Not very, from the looks
> of things. Tsk tsk.
You wish.
> Come, now, John, this EXCUSE does not wash with me. Not that it would
> matter to you. What I think does not matter. And, as you so aptly
> show here every day, what other people think does not matter to you.
> Someone with your mind had better be thick-skinned. Poor guy.
Basically your claims don't wash.
I openly discuss God being right. Work is work though, and I
shouldn't profit from God being right.
> BUT--
>
> It's your GOD that you will have to deal with on THIS one, John.
> Think about that. Hard. Till it hurts. You know I'm right.
Bulloona.
John P. Boatwright
>
> In article <3B1079...@salad-e.com>,
> John P. Boatwright <na...@salad-e.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >But him and other DEAD atheists can't say much more than what
> >they already said. There's only two choices:
> >
> >1. They're dead and were wrong.
> >2. They're dead and you'll never know if they were right.
>
> Jesus is dead too.
His physical body died, ya.
> And he was wrong.
No, actually, he was incredibly right.
> This fool thought he'd preside
> over judgement day itself.
You need to read the Old Testament, the ARM OF GOD saves,
and ONLY the ARM OF GOD can save... see God say such in Job.
The ARM OF GOD saved them out of Egypt using MIGHT and POWER,
but God didn't use MIGHT and POWER when he sent the messiah
to die for our sins... he used God's SPIRIT on the Mount
of Olives (Zec 4).
See Daniel 9, the Old Testament says specifically that the
MESSIAH would be CUT OFF... killed, an end to sins.
> He said that he'd come into his
> kingdom in the lifetimes of "Some standing here" and preside
> over judgement day, "reward all men according to their acts".
> Matthew 16:27-8. He was wrong.
No, he said some would SEE it.
John saw it, see Revelations where he described what he saw.
> Matthew 24-5, Luke 19, Mark 13, he claimed the in
> "this generation", all would see teh moon and sun fail, the
> heavens shaken and teh stars fall.
He didn't say THEY would experience it, he said some
would SEE it.
And Jesus said, when you SEE all those things he described
come to pass, then THAT generation will know it's at
the door.
> They didn't.
> he claimed they'd see him descend with clouds of heaven and his
> father's angels.
See John in Revelation.
> They did not.
See just above.
> He claimed his angels would gather the elect from the four
> corners of the globe. They didn't.
Revelation describes it guy... John saw it, Jesus said
some would >>> SEE <<< it.
> he claimed he'd gather teh nations and sort the sheep
> from tghe gaots, teh goats to go to hell, the sheep
> to eternal life.
>
> In "this generation" all these things were to be done.
> None of it happened.
Again... some saw it some didn't.
Jesus also said some would be killed... but not all.
Some would see it, some wouldn't.
Jesus didn't say everyone there would see or be killed,
just that some would.
Some were then killed, some then saw the generation that
would be around when the final stuff is fullfilled.
> In Matthew 26:64, Jesus told the high priest
> at Jerusalem that he'd see Jesus descend with
> "clouds of heaven" the same phrase he used in Matthew
> 24:31 which was to be witnessed by "this generation".
ha ha ha...
Get a grip.
Jesus didn't tell the high preist the same stuff he
said to his apostles.
Jesus told the high priest that HEREAFTER he'd see it, that
eventually he would see it... at judgement when the guy would
be being judged, and he'd see him and know it was Jesus.
Guess what that high priest will be thinking then.
Jesus NEVER said he'd see him right then in that manner,
but that he'd see him HEREAFTER on the RIGHT HAND OF GOD.
Jesus is the ARM OF GOD.
How simple does this stuff have to be... it seems so obvious,
yet for whatever reason, you can't see it.
> So "this generation" does indeed mean within the lifespan
> of that priest and not 1970 years later as lying and foolish
> Christians try to claim.
ha ha ha...
HEREAFTER does not mean "this generation".
> Jesus is dead.
He died physically, spiritually, the ARM OF GOD never died.
> He is gone.
God exists, you'll have to get over it.
> He's not coming back.
Ya he is.
> His prophecies of judgement day 1930 years ago
> were foolish stupidities.
Nope.
Jesus said the eagles would gather to the carcase...
They did.
Jesus said the heavens would separate as a scroll...
They did.
Jesus said that WHEN you see the abomination of desolation
as spoken of by Daniel... on the Holy One's quarter,
that they should flee from Judea.
That desolation on the Holy One's quarter is known,
it's as Daniel 9 said it'd be.
Guess who's in Judea and should seriously consider what
Jesus told them.
> He is as dead as anybody and knows nothing of it.
Nah.
> Your religion is false.
ha ha ha...
You wish.
> Deal with it.
Easily, you've failed ... a peice of cake to demolish your
arguements... since Jesus was clearly right in what he said.
Glenn MacEachern
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
> Glenn MacEachern wrote:
> >
> > "John P. Boatwright" wrote:
>
> > > Anyway, God exists, see BT's CD, it's stated there plain as day.
> >
> > Oh my...I can't be seeing this..Boaty can't be for real, seriously, he has to
> > be a troll..it's gone WAY too far....this has to be the dumbest statement
> > anybody has ever made in the history of the world...maybe I'm
> > exaggerating...maybe it's just that I've been gone for the weekend and forget
> > how things get here:P
>
> It's on the CD, well, on the back of the little booklet
> thingy in the case:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> GREAT THANKS AND GRATITUDE TO:
>
> God for the music and synchronicity, Dominique, ...
>
> (about 20 more lines of people he thanks)
>
> - BT "Movement in still life"
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now, notice who BT thanked FIRST...
>
> Ya.
>
> God was thanked FIRST.
>
Ok..so he's a strong believer in god...how is that proof in the existance of god?
I'm not even sure that's good proof of the existance of his belief in god :P
-grm-
John P. Boatwright
Uh... he was just thanking God >>> FIRST <<< before a HUGE
list of others he thanked.
Obviously God exists... BT confirmed it.
You think maybe he said more about it on other CD's?
Bored With The Boring Again
God damn boaty, why don't you take that to the Nobel Prize committee.
Bored With The Boring Again
wrote:
>
It's really quite simple: John knows that if a potential customer
were to see the weird shit in his religious pages, they would
immediately (and rightfully) dismiss him as a Kook. Since this would
have a serious impact on his bottom line, it is obvious that John's
real god is the Almighty Dollar and that the rest of it is just a
hobby.
On the other hand, if he were living in Oklahoma, a link to the goofy
religious crap would most likely -enhance- his business.
William Barwell
John P. Boatwright <na...@For-God.net> wrote:
>>
>> In article <3B1079...@salad-e.com>,
>> John P. Boatwright <na...@salad-e.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >But him and other DEAD atheists can't say much more than what
>> >they already said. There's only two choices:
>> >
>> >1. They're dead and were wrong.
>> >2. They're dead and you'll never know if they were right.
>>
>> Jesus is dead too.
>
>His physical body died, ya.
dead as a doornail. That's reality.
>> And he was wrong.
>
>No, actually, he was incredibly right.
No, he was wrong. Read on.
>> This fool thought he'd preside
>> over judgement day itself.
>
*********************** DRIVEL DELETED *********************
>
>> He said that he'd come into his
>> kingdom in the lifetimes of "Some standing here" and preside
>> over judgement day, "reward all men according to their acts".
>> Matthew 16:27-8. He was wrong.
>
>No, he said some would SEE it
He said they'd see him come into his kingdom and reward all men accoridng
to their acts. See Matthew 25:31-45 for what that means.
Those standing there did not see what he promised.
.
>
>> Matthew 24-5, Luke 19, Mark 13, he claimed the in
>> "this generation", all would see teh moon and sun fail, the
>> heavens shaken and the stars fall.
>
>He didn't say THEY would experience it, he said some
>would SEE it.
Duhhhhhhhhhhh! He said they'd see it and buddy, if stars
could afll, and they can't you sure would experince it. he said the
people of that time would experience all sorts of horrors
and terrors. "Neither let him that is in the field return
back to take his clothes."
But these horrors did not happen in "this generation" as
promised, and yes, "this generation" means the same generation
as "Some standing here".
Jesus promised them they'd see him descending "with clouds of heaven"
and his father's angels. They did not.
>
>And Jesus said, when you SEE all those things he described
>come to pass, then THAT generation will know it's at
>the door.
>
No, "This generation of Matthew 24:31 = the generation
of "some standing here". Matthew 24-5 is one pericope.
The gathering of the nations and sorting sheep and goats
of Matthew 25 = reward all men according to their acts
of Matthew 16:27-8. The descent with "clouds of heaven"
= the "clouds of heaven" that Jesus tells the high priest of
Jerusalem he will see Jesus descend in in Matthew 26:63.
So "this generation" also means within the lifespan of
the high priest of Jerusalem.
You cannot brush away "some standing here" and
you cannot brush away Jesus's comments to the high
Priest, using the exact phrase "clouds of heaven" found in
Matthew 24:31 which is to be witnessed by "this generation".
"This generation" = "some standing here shall not taste of death"
= within the lifespan of the high priest of Jerusalem.
And all your desperate apologism, cracked logic, scrabbling
apologisms. lying and degrading word games will make the fact
disappear.
Jesus promised he'd preside over judgment day itself 1930
years ago and he was utterly, absolutley, totally, dead wrong.
>> They didn't.
>> he claimed they'd see him descend with clouds of heaven and his
>> father's angels.
>
>See John in Revelation.
>
See Matthew 24-5, 16:26-7, 26:63, Mark 13, Luke 21.
Your desperate attempts to pretend Jesus was
not a flop as he obviously was, are so pathetic and pitiful.
>> They did not.
>
>See just above.
>
>> He claimed his angels would gather the elect from the four
>> corners of the globe. They didn't.
>
>Revelation describes it guy... John saw it, Jesus said
>some would >>> SEE <<< it.
>
Jesus said that "this generation", that is the generation
of "Some standing here", that is the generation
of the high priest of Jerusalem, would see these things.
"This generation, was to see him descend with "clouds of heaven"
as was the high priest of Jerusalem.
"Some standing here' were to see him 'reward all men
according to their acts", they are teh same as "This generation" who will
see the gathering of the nations of Matthew 24-5.
You are just plain wrong, wrong headed, and obviously, getting
desperate.
Jesus screwed the pooch. He made 'prophecies' that utterly failed.
>> he claimed he'd gather the nations and sort the sheep
>> from the goats, the goats to go to hell, the sheep
>> to eternal life.
>>
>> In "this generation" all these things were to be done.
>> None of it happened.
>
>Again... some saw it some didn't.
>
None saw it. No nations were gatthered, no men were rewarded
as per their acts, the judgement day of Jesus, to happen then,
in "this generation" , in the times of "some standing here",
in the lifetime of the high priest of Jerusalem, did not
happen as jesus prophecied all would happen.
And the sun and moon did not fall, the stars did not fall,
all the prohecies Jesus prophecied for his day and age,
did not happen as promised.
You have thus, wasted your entire LIFE believing
in a religous kook whose main prophecy was an utter
and total failure.
Your desperate babbling and attempts to play word
games to pretend to yourself that this is not so,
is degrading and pitiful.
>Jesus also said some would be killed... but not all.
>
He said all the nations would be gathered before him.
And he will sort men as a shepherd sorts sheep and goats.
Matthew 25:31-3 are plain and simple.
They will then be judged.
Matthew 25:34-44.
"And the these shall go into eternal torment, but the righteous
into life eternal".
Its obvious what the Bible says and means, but since it did not
happen as promised, you have to twist, and turn, and writhe
and play word ganmes in a most intellectually dishonest fashion, because
obviously, the Bible is 100% false here in the most important
claim Jesus made.
You cannot stand truth.
You will not have the truth.
You will tell yourself desperate lies. Lies, lies, lies.
Anybody can read the Bible and see I tell the truth.
Jesus blew it out his ass bigtime.
He died futilely.
>
>> In Matthew 26:64, Jesus told the high priest
>> at Jerusalem that he'd see Jesus descend with
>> "clouds of heaven" the same phrase he used in Matthew
>> 24:31 which was to be witnessed by "this generation".
>
>ha ha ha...
Yes, he says "this generation" will see these things come to pass
including his descent with clouds of heaven in Matthew 24:31.
Now he tells the high priest he will see him descend from heaven in
"clouds of heaven".
Obviously then, "this generation" = within the lifetime
oft hat self-same high priest at Jerusalem of Matthew 26:63
That ancient lie that "this generation" did not mean
in the time of those living as jesus spoke is a lie.
"Ha ha ha" does not make these sad truths disappear.
"Ha ha ha" does not make your lies stop being the self delusion
it is.
And no matter how much you lie to yourself, you know
deep down, you are lying to yourself.
You wasted your life on a fairy tale.
On a religous kook whose big prophecy was utterly wrong.
Whose claim to soon be presiding over judgement day itself was
simply one of the most wrong headed claims uttered in human
history.
>
>Get a grip.
>
>Jesus didn't tell the high preist the same stuff he
>said to his apostles.
He told that high priest that he, the high priest
would see him descend from heaven with "clouds
of heaven" He claimed that he'd descend in
"clouds of heaven" in Matthew 24:31 and in
Matthew 24;36 he saws that "Verily I say unto you
this generation shall not pass until all these things
be fulfilled."
That includes;
"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven;
and then shall the tribes of earth mourn, and they shall see
the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power
and great glory.
Clouds of heaven, "This generation" and the high priest are
to see Jesus escend from heaven with "clouds of heaven"
26:64
Jesus said unto him, "Thou hast said; Nethertheless
I say unto thee, Hereafter, you shall see the Son of Man
sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in clouds of heaven.
You cannot pretend now with any truth that "this generation"
was meant to mean a time long past the time of this high priest.
Not with anything approaching honesty.
Christianity is based literally on intellectual dishonesty.
If Christianity was not thoroughly and toatlly dishonest
in the extreme, it would have disappeared 1950 years ago.
Only lies sustain this pathetic superstition.
>Jesus told the high priest that HEREAFTER he'd see it, that
>eventually he would see it... at judgement when the guy would
>be being judged, and he'd see him and know it was Jesus.
He told the high priest he would the high priest would see
Jesus sitting on the right hand of power and coming in
clouds of heaven.
That ties that high priest's lifetime to "this generation".
You lie to yourself and you know it.
>Guess what that high priest will be thinking then.
The high priest died 1930 years ago without seeing
jesus sitting on the right hand of power and coming with cloouds of
heaven. This generation" did not see that either as promised.
"Some standing here" did not see him come into his kingdom
and reward all men as promised.
The apostels did not see him come into his kingdom before they had gone
over the cities of Israel as promised.
You can tell yourself all the desperate lies you want, but you know deep
down, you are indeed lying.
>Jesus NEVER said he'd see him right then in that manner,
>but that he'd see him HEREAFTER on the RIGHT HAND OF GOD.
That is exactly indeed what Jesus told the high priest.
No amount of lying to yourself will make that fact go away.
He told the priest he would see Jesus on the "right hand
of power, and coming in clouds of heaven".
You do not even dare quote the Bible on this correctly.
Anybody can get a Bible, turn to Matthew 26:64
and see how you mangled this quote but I quoted it right.
Anybody can read Matt 26:63 and Matt 24:31-6 and see
that "this generation" must mean within the lifespan
of that high priest.
And that you and Christians lie. To yourselves first, than
others. That Christainity is thus false nad based on lies
and lies alone.
That truth is not only not in you, but that you are
so far from the truth that even when the truth is pointed
out to you, you cannot then accept truth, you are so steeped
in lies that truth will always be beyond your capabilities.
Matthew 16 and Matthew 25 nail the coffin shut.
>Jesus is the ARM OF GOD.
Jesus is only a long dead and gone religous kook.
He thought he'd preside over judgement day and teh end
of the earth. He was simply wrong.
Time to grow up, John.
>How simple does this stuff have to be... it seems so obvious,
>yet for whatever reason, you can't see it.
I see it, you dare not.
>> So "this generation" does indeed mean within the lifespan
>> of that priest and not 1970 years later as lying and foolish
>> Christians try to claim.
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>HEREAFTER does not mean "this generation".
"Nevertheless, I say unto you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man
sitting on the right hand of power and descending in clouds of heaven".
It means exactly what it says, that the priest is to see Jesus
descend in clouds of heaven.
In this lifetime, your desperate dodge is only that.
A desperate man lying to himself because he does
not like the truth.
Jesus is gone. His prophecy was wrong.
He's not coming back. Christainity is
just a grotesque superstition, based only on intellectual
dishonesty of the most extreme kind.
It mentally emasculates men, making them good
only for fool drovers.
And now, a few more nails in the coffin of Christianity.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
****************************************************************
Testing the Bible FAQ
Christianity is one of the few religions that can actually
be tested scientifically. Testing claims is the very essence
of science and is why science works so well. Testing discards
errors. The New Testament represents Jesus as making claims that
can readily be tested. Below are four NT texts that are testable,
and that fail such testing, showing that Christianity cannot be
true.
*******************************************************************
Mark 11:22-3
22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have Faith in God.
23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto
this mountain, be thou removed, and be thou cast into the
sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe
that these things he saith shall come to pass; he shall have
whatsoever he saith.
Jesus promises obvious and spectacular miracle working abilities
to those who "shall not doubt in his heart". But it does not work.
Nobody gets "whatever he saith" merely from lacking doubt.
Nobody moves mountains or similar such tricks.
********************************************************************
Matthew 21:21
21 And all things, whatsoever you ask in prayer, believing,
you shall recieve.
Nobody gets all they ask in prayer, as promised by Jesus.
*********************************************************************
John 14:12-14
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me,
the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works shall
he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatever ye shall ask in my name, that I will do, that
the Father may be glorified in the son.
14 If ye ask anything in my name, I will do it.
Nobody changes water to wine, finds his tax money in a fish,
feeds thousands with a few fishes and loaves, walks on water.
Much less betters these works. Nobody gets "whatever ye shall
ask" despite this promise, even asking in the name of Jesus.
***********************************************************************
Matthew 18:18-19
19 Verily I say unto you, if two of you shall agree on earth
as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done
for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am
in the midst of them.
No two Christians get "any thing they shall ask" despite this
solemn promise from Jesus.
***********************************************************************
These are easily testable and unmistakable promises from
Jesus, alledged son of God, as found readily in the New
Testament. These promises are not attainable. Thus Jesus
was wrong, the New Testament is wrong, all of Christianity
is based on errors. If one cannot trust the solemn promises
of Jesus that can readily be tested, obviously, nobody can
trust those not so readibly testable, such as the existance
of heaven or the claim only through Jesus can one get there.
Seeing how badly readily testable claims of Jesus fail, it is
safe to assume all other promises are equally false, equally
erroneous.
Christianity is simply another superstition, nothing more.
These simple verses, easily tested, prove it.
William C. Barwell 4-6-96
************************************************************************
John D. Leckie
Funny you should say that. I recently lived in Oklahoma for eight
years, and you're RIGHT! J/K...
OH I know what the situation is. I just wanted to see him attempt to
refute the obvious. I can tell it got to him, too. Did you see his
response to my pointing out that all this discussion doesn't matter,
and he'll have to deal with his GOD on this one? His response was,
and I quote, "Bulloona." :) Very well thought out. Talk about
burying your head in the sand!
I think I'll leave the poor man to his "works" now. Both of them.
(wink wink). Or maybe I'll respond again, but it gets kinda
repetitive, really. He completely glazed over my point on
Proselytizing, saying that it's been written in books for centuries.
Well, why bother posting it anywhere, then? He's reaching such a
small number of people this way. I mean, if you're gonna share the
WORD buddy, really SHARE THE WORD! Hehe.
Maybe I'll call up ZDNET and send them this guy's website. See if
they'll put it up on ZDTV as their site of the day. It's funny, it's
catchy, it's snazzy. Maybe they'll like it, and Boaty will find lots
of people like himself to play with. Nah, the site really looks
sucky. They won't use it.
John
John D. Leckie
<na...@For-God.net> wrote:
>John D. Leckie wrote:
>>
>> Thank you, John, for treating us to a wonderful tap-dance!
>
>Ya right.
Denial.
>> Oh yeah, you keep telling yourself this BS, John. The fact is you
>> don't want potential customers to know how kooky you are.
>
>I couldn't care less.
>
>I mostly work LOCALLY, so what if someone sees a "work site"
>internationally??? Nobody bothers with a work site.
Translation: there's no real business that he's getting anyhow. It's
an amateur, hobby-like "business" and the site reflects that.
However:
What do you mean NOBODY BOTHERS? What does whether or not they COME
to your site have to do with generating traffic in the direction of
your site? What matters the most? Which site is more IMPORTANT,
John?
If you couldn't care less about that, you are again failing your god.
>> As
>> confident as you like to SEEM about all that nonsense, you have OTHER
>> reasons for not revealing it openly that have NOTHING to do with
>> profit. Please. Read on.
>
>No, I was completely honest about it.
>
>On each page, there is a statement saying it's all FREELY GIVEN,
>that people are to judge it, to research and figure it out. I
>don't want anything for the effort, it wasn't written for me, it
>was written for God.
If it's freely given, then it's non-profit, isn't it? How do you
profit from a non-profit website? Aw... oops!
Here we are again avoiding the issue. Of course it says on each page
that the info is freely given. Very good, "guy." You can read your
own page. Are you really this thick? What does who it was written
for have to do with whether or not to DRAW MORE PEOPLE to your site?
Pay attention to the issue at hand. I'm talking about Proselytizing
here, John. Don't you want to share God's word? If it was written
for God, do you want more people to see it? I find it hard to believe
you aren't willing to work a little harder to get more people to see
God's web site.
It should more than just freely given. It should be shared with as
many people as possible, especially if it's RIGHT. TRUTH is so
important to share with as many people as possible. Get some traffic
to that site, John!
>> "don't want to profit from God being right," indeed. That's an
>> interesting angle... You really need to keep telling yourself this,
>> don't you? Do you have any IDEA how positively WEAK that EXCUSE is?
>> I know you like to SAY we atheists are idiots, but come now. We are
>> NOT that foolish...
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>You're the one saying it guy.
I'm the one saying we are NOT as foolish as you think.
>> What about Proselytizing, John? You have such a wealth of information
>> there, and you completely FAIL to share the goodness of God's word
>> (BACKED BY SCIENCE AND GREAT ILLUSTRATIONS!) with people who get to
>> your website because they're looking for your services... Think of the
>> potential converts. It's an elementary form of directing traffic in
>> that direction. You would NOT be profiting from God's word, John.
>> You would be showing the light to so many other people!
>
>Duh!
>
>That's why it's posted AGAIN and AGAIN to go read the site.
I have read the site. What do you mean by "it's posted AGAIN and
AGAIN?" Of course it's very vibrant within its little closed
environment. Once again, John, for you, I'm not talking about what
your site says. I'm talking about SHARING it with MORE PEOPLE.
>I'm not hoping for someone to seeing a "work site"... that's ridiculous.
You are not hoping for someone to seeing a "work site?" What in the
hell does that sentence say? Run that by me again. Is english your
first language?
> "Oh ya, you're buying bananas today??? Well then you
> also need to read this verse in the bible... and
> we have some other fruits too... and how about what
> Paul said over in this verse... and don't you need
> some milk today? Oh yes, grape fruits over there... "
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>Didn't Jesus kick them out of the Temple over that crud?
No, Jesus kicked them out for selling their wares on sacred ground.
They were not doing what I'm suggesting you do. They were doing the
opposite, really. The merchants were taking advantage of religious
traffic to the temple to sell their wares. What you would be doing is
the complete OPPOSITE. You would be giving potential customers the
opportunity to see, FOR FREE-- "freely given," remember, the things
you have discovered about the wondrous science connected with God.
Okay, let's look at this another way. HOW would you be profiting from
the information on your site? Just explain that to me. Your business
is a separate issue here, but you have a chance, through your
business, to ALSO share your views with people. You REALLY THINK that
sharing THOSE pages with potential customers will make them MORE
LIKELY to buy from YOU, and therefore is an indirect way of
guaranteeing more business, and therefore profiting? You really
believe that?
If you really believed that you could get more business from sharing
God's word with your potential customers, you would be doing it.
This contrivance of yours is just an excuse you tell US, and, no doubt
repeat to yourself, in order to get around the obvious issue of your
failure to share your valuable information with more people. You make
your own case below. Read on.
>> You say that since you SPEW on usenet that it cannot be said that you
>> aren't openly speaking your mind. I think you know that the
>> percentage of people who casually use the internet who ALSO use usenet
>> is relatively small.
>
>I've said that over and over.
>
>Ask Dan Fake, I asked as a general call to all readers, if anyone
>read the ONE post, to reply that they'd read it... ONE person
>replied.
>
>There's only a few that might read any one post... many less
>that might read some obscure "work site".
So, here, you ADMIT that you are getting very little consideration,
and therefore relatively little traffic to your freely given
information about God. You don't want to do something about that?
It's simple numbers, John. Even if your work site gets little
traffic, ANY possible directing to your innocent, non-profit,
freely-given information site would be good, wouldn't it? Are you
doing enough for your god?
>> Besides, the MORE people you can share this
>> with, the better, right? It's amazing to me that someone would have
>> to talk you into just one little link on your site that points to the
>> stuff that REALLY matters in life. Your God.
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>There's an ENTIRE SITE and posts made daily pointing people to it.
Yes, John, on USENET. You yourself said above that ONE person replied
when you asked for a reply. You're happy to pepper your god site all
over usenet, because you feel relatively SAFE doing that.
Are you really this complacent? Don't you EVER ask yourself, "Am I
doing enough?" I guess not-- if you work at a grocery store and have
a little wannabe "business" site. You're perfectly content in all
aspects of life, striving for nothing. Even in sharing God's word you
have grown slothful. For shame.
Just tell us the truth--- you'd rather not put this on your work site
because it's like Jeckyl and Hyde. Someone's perusing your little
"business" site, where the grammar is halfway decent, and even the
spelling, and no kookiness whatsoever. Suddenly, BAM, they follow a
link and there are all these garish, horrible, clashing colors, and
pictures of outer space with Jesus and fish and baskets and... god's
EYE, and... hahhahahaa. Sorry, it's just too much for me. Had to
laugh.
>Meanwhile, some obscure work site...
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>Nobody bothers guy.
Excuse.
>And... I don't want to profit from God being right. The second I'd
>put a link on a work site... that's when I'd feel like I had
>profitted... from HIS own statements that were right.
Excuse. How would you profit? This is repetitive. Why are you being
so repetitive, John? It has something to do with the flimsiness of
your argument here. Your GOD knows what you are really thinking,
John.
>I shouldn't profit one cent from God being right. But others
>should get all they can from him being right... God is their
>creator, they need to know him... knowing him, they will profit.
Okay, then, help people who are potential customers profit from
knowing God! You are acting as if you can dismiss them because,
well, that's business. The business should take a back seat to God,
shouldn't it? Realistically, though, does whether or not they are
customers matter to your God? If this evidence is so compelling that
it might draw people to God, don't you think that He would want you to
help them out? You still forget about preaching, John. You have a
duty to show people the way, and to share this wonderful information,
and you are FAILING to do so...
>> Furthermore, I have seen many, MANY private sites for small businesses
>> that have that cute little Jesus fish in the corner... most people
>> WANT you to know they are Christian because we ALL know you can TRUST
>> a Christian, right? Well, you can really one-up these people,
>> Boatwright! Forget the fish! You can show them your EVIDENCE, John!
>> This is such a waste of potential!
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>That's what they want to do, but for me, I don't want to
>profit from God being right.
>
>In fact, it says people can copy the site if they reference
>where sections came from, or the entire stuff if it's left
>intact as is.
>
>There is NOTHING stopping anyone from finding out that God
>was right all along.
>
>Heck guy, it's in bibles HUNDREDS of years old, in MUSEUMS
>all over the globe.
Again, sigh, no one would accuse you of profiting. You need to just
knock that straw man down and quit using it over and over. Do you
actually think that to share this stuff would draw customers to you?
It would be happening the other way around, John. I'm not talking
about putting a link to your BUSINESS site from your God site. Think
about that. I'm not talking about that.
If it's in books and museums, why bother posting about it? Why are
you sharing it if this excuse works? And if you ARE sharing it, why
not share it with MORE people? You keep avoiding this.
>> You should feel GUILTY, John, for letting your (deep-seated,
>> repressed, denial-laden) embarassment over your "evidence" keep you
>> from sharing your true feelings with people who come to your site.
>> Don't you WANT them to know that you're not ONLY a Christian, but one
>> with more powerful evidence than the average Christian?
>
>It's posted DAILY, sure there's a few times when I can't post
>during the week, but heck, us grocery store clerks can't
>post each and every day... but mostly, it's out there in force.
>
>In contrast, I can't recall EVER posting that someone should see
>a work site, heck that's considered to be spam and seems ridiculous
>since I mostly only work locally.
In force, eh? Keep telling yourself that.
It's posted Daily on Usenet, yes. You feel that is enough, do you?
Tsk tsk.
No one is asking you to post HERE referencing your work site. Who
ever said that? Now you are REALLY starting to go crazy here. You're
forgetting what we are talking about.
>> How important, really, is your God to you? Not very, from the looks
>> of things. Tsk tsk.
>
>You wish.
Denial.
>> Come, now, John, this EXCUSE does not wash with me. Not that it would
>> matter to you. What I think does not matter. And, as you so aptly
>> show here every day, what other people think does not matter to you.
>> Someone with your mind had better be thick-skinned. Poor guy.
>
>Basically your claims don't wash.
Denial.
>I openly discuss God being right. Work is work though, and I
>shouldn't profit from God being right.
Straw man. Boring. Repetitive. You're repeating this for YOUR
benefit, John. You need to believe this so you can sleep at night
knowing you aren't doing all you can for the personal reason of not
wanting to drive customers AWAY. You ARE profiting, John, from
LEAVING THAT CRAP OFF YOUR WORK SITE. You know it.
When Jesus asks you why you didn't share, He will know that you didn't
share because you felt safe linking to it on Usenet, but you didn't
want to risk your little business traffic by sharing it with other
people who may have come THERE who have no idea about Usenet.
You will say, from your lips, "Jesus, I didn't want to PROFIT from God
being right," but you will know, as you say it, that it is a weak-ass
excuse. Think about that coming moment, John. You will feel so
ashamed.
>> BUT--
>>
>> It's your GOD that you will have to deal with on THIS one, John.
>> Think about that. Hard. Till it hurts. You know I'm right.
>
>Bulloona.
Aw, John, is "Bulloona" the best you can do here? I think it is. I
think you know I'm right here, and you will NEVER share your info any
more than you are doing now. That is an UTTER FAILURE on your part to
share your information with as MANY people as possible.
Pointing out that it's been in the Bible, or Museums, is a COPOUT,
John, and do you want to know why? It's a copout because the format
in which you present this unique, thought out point of view can not be
seen in a museum, or in the Bible. Christians buy books all the time
by authors that have their own way to explain their views. Why should
you be any different? Don't even think of it as recognition or
profit. Think of it from the simple motivation of wanting to share
what you know with other people. Don't you WANT to do that, John?
I think that you don't.
John
*for posterity's sake, I include the below quoted text for those who
may have entered into the discussion late*
Glenn MacEachern
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
No not obviously.
>
> You think maybe he said more about it on other CD's?
I couldn't care less what this BT fellow said on any number of CDs, Vinyls or 8-Tracks.
It's just his opinion. And i dont' know the reasons for his opinion, so I can't comment
on that.
But I know that you're a wacko:)
-grm-
Vexen
> > >they already said. There's only two choices:
> > >
> > >1. They're dead and were wrong.
> > >2. They're dead and you'll never know if they were right.
> >
> > Jesus is dead too.
>
> His physical body died, ya.
>
> > And he was wrong.
>
> No, actually, he was incredibly right.
You're not going to know that until you're dead.
Then, you will find that you have been wrong... or if you are right,
we'll never know.
--
Vexen Crabtree
http://www.vexen.co.uk
http://simon.crabtree.com
dlh
author.]
In article <9ethob$66q$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, Ve...@vexen.co.uk
says...
> > > >But him and other DEAD atheists can't say much more than what
> > > >they already said. There's only two choices:
> > > >
> > > >1. They're dead and were wrong.
> > > >2. They're dead and you'll never know if they were right.
> > >
> > > Jesus is dead too.
> >
> > His physical body died, ya.
> >
> > > And he was wrong.
> >
> > No, actually, he was incredibly right.
>
> You're not going to know that until you're dead.
>
> Then, you will find that you have been wrong... or if you are right,
> we'll never know.
>
>
Yes, and if you do a survey of dead people they don't seem to know
anything.
D. Haas
Bored With The Boring Again
wrote:
Send an email to Psycho Dave http://www.weirdcrap.com
He's always on the lookout for stuff like that. ;-)
If johnboy were really serious, he'd register both his sites with some
search engines.
John P. Boatwright
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2001 15:13:32 -0700, "John P. Boatwright"
> <na...@For-God.net> wrote:
>
> >John D. Leckie wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you, John, for treating us to a wonderful tap-dance!
> >
> >Ya right.
>
> Denial.
What denial?
I was honest about it.
Some atheists claimed I was a grocery store clerk... as it
turns out, I am. It's on the resume... somewhere around here.
> >> Oh yeah, you keep telling yourself this BS, John. The fact is you
> >> don't want potential customers to know how kooky you are.
> >
> >I couldn't care less.
> >
> >I mostly work LOCALLY, so what if someone sees a "work site"
> >internationally??? Nobody bothers with a work site.
>
> Translation: there's no real business that he's getting anyhow. It's
> an amateur, hobby-like "business" and the site reflects that.
Looks like you're scraping for details...
> However:
>
> What do you mean NOBODY BOTHERS? What does whether or not they COME
> to your site have to do with generating traffic in the direction of
> your site? What matters the most? Which site is more IMPORTANT,
> John?
I just told you several times, I do NOT want to profit
from pointing out that God was right. God was the one
that was right, what he said in the scriptures is correct
and matches what his creation shows... and it's HIS creation.
I feel like if I ever profitted from him being right, that
it would REALLY SUCK at judgement.
> If you couldn't care less about that, you are again failing your god.
Nah.
> >> As
> >> confident as you like to SEEM about all that nonsense, you have OTHER
> >> reasons for not revealing it openly that have NOTHING to do with
> >> profit. Please. Read on.
> >
> >No, I was completely honest about it.
> >
> >On each page, there is a statement saying it's all FREELY GIVEN,
> >that people are to judge it, to research and figure it out. I
> >don't want anything for the effort, it wasn't written for me, it
> >was written for God.
>
> If it's freely given, then it's non-profit, isn't it? How do you
> profit from a non-profit website? Aw... oops!
The one site is for profit, the other is NOT.
This is OBVIOUS isn't it?
If I mix the two, there is the chance that I might profit from
that mixing and I don't want to profit from God being right.
> Here we are again avoiding the issue. Of course it says on each page
> that the info is freely given. Very good, "guy." You can read your
> own page. Are you really this thick? What does who it was written
> for have to do with whether or not to DRAW MORE PEOPLE to your site?
It's posted daily GUY, why should I put a link showing God to
be right on a for profit web site? When that occurs, there is
the chance that I'd profit more by doing that, and I do NOT
want to profit from God being right.
Once that starts, objectivity would probably vanish... things
then done for profit rather than FOR GOD. That's where the title
came from, the site is FOR GOD.
> Pay attention to the issue at hand. I'm talking about Proselytizing
> here, John. Don't you want to share God's word? If it was written
> for God, do you want more people to see it? I find it hard to believe
> you aren't willing to work a little harder to get more people to see
> God's web site.
I wouldn't be posting it daily if I was trying to hide it.
> It should more than just freely given. It should be shared with as
> many people as possible, especially if it's RIGHT. TRUTH is so
> important to share with as many people as possible. Get some traffic
> to that site, John!
There are actually several sites out there linking to it, but
they're mostly atheist sites.
ha ha ha...
They're advertising how God was right, but they think he's wrong,
thinking they're doing damage saying such...
ha ha ha...
Oh well... atheists are like that, doing the wrong stuff and
not realizing it.
> >> "don't want to profit from God being right," indeed. That's an
> >> interesting angle... You really need to keep telling yourself this,
> >> don't you? Do you have any IDEA how positively WEAK that EXCUSE is?
> >> I know you like to SAY we atheists are idiots, but come now. We are
> >> NOT that foolish...
> >
> >ha ha ha...
> >
> >You're the one saying it guy.
>
> I'm the one saying we are NOT as foolish as you think.
Oh ya???
How about 11 dimensions?
Just where are they anyway?
All that GARBAGE about 11 dimensions and piles of convoluted
thinking just so they could claim NOTHING was the source of
everything.
I don't buy it.
I think they wrote a RELIGION claiming 11 dimensions so they
could then ignore God being right.
> >> What about Proselytizing, John? You have such a wealth of information
> >> there, and you completely FAIL to share the goodness of God's word
> >> (BACKED BY SCIENCE AND GREAT ILLUSTRATIONS!) with people who get to
> >> your website because they're looking for your services... Think of the
> >> potential converts. It's an elementary form of directing traffic in
> >> that direction. You would NOT be profiting from God's word, John.
> >> You would be showing the light to so many other people!
> >
> >Duh!
> >
> >That's why it's posted AGAIN and AGAIN to go read the site.
>
> I have read the site. What do you mean by "it's posted AGAIN and
> AGAIN?" Of course it's very vibrant within its little closed
> environment. Once again, John, for you, I'm not talking about what
> your site says. I'm talking about SHARING it with MORE PEOPLE.
It's posted as a link again and again on usenet, in forums
that discuss God existing.
> >I'm not hoping for someone to seeing a "work site"... that's ridiculous.
>
> You are not hoping for someone to seeing a "work site?" What in the
> hell does that sentence say? Run that by me again. Is english your
> first language?
Why is this so hard to understand?
I'm not posting about work, I'm posting to say God is right.
> > "Oh ya, you're buying bananas today??? Well then you
> > also need to read this verse in the bible... and
> > we have some other fruits too... and how about what
> > Paul said over in this verse... and don't you need
> > some milk today? Oh yes, grape fruits over there... "
> >
> >ha ha ha...
> >
> >Didn't Jesus kick them out of the Temple over that crud?
>
> No, Jesus kicked them out for selling their wares on sacred ground.
>
> They were not doing what I'm suggesting you do. They were doing the
> opposite, really. The merchants were taking advantage of religious
> traffic to the temple to sell their wares.
See???
> What you would be doing is the complete OPPOSITE.
No it isn't.
Their BUSINESS started out as a way to make a PROFIT from
changing the money.
Then then noticed that the people visiting the temple
needed their money changed.
By them showing up there, they were saying that they approved
of said temple, then while there, made a profit.
They started out in BUSINESS, attached to a temple, then
made a PROFIT off those visiting the temple.
I don't want to do that last sentence.
I >>> KNOW <<< that God is right and that HE had the correct
sequence in Genesis, that he said EXACTLY how he formed creation
and that what he said matches what his creation shows.
I started out in business, saw that God was right, but
I do NOT want to profit from him being right, or pointing
out that he's right.
> You would be giving potential customers the
> opportunity to see, FOR FREE-- "freely given," remember, the things
> you have discovered about the wondrous science connected with God.
Nah, there's always the chance I'd profit from it.
The work site is for profit, so the two don't mix.
> Okay, let's look at this another way. HOW would you be profiting from
> the information on your site? Just explain that to me. Your business
> is a separate issue here, but you have a chance, through your
> business, to ALSO share your views with people. You REALLY THINK that
> sharing THOSE pages with potential customers will make them MORE
> LIKELY to buy from YOU, and therefore is an indirect way of
> guaranteeing more business, and therefore profiting? You really
> believe that?
A past aquaintence working at a multi-billion dollar company,
some upper whatever type, wrote and mentioned God in his email,
saying he really believes God. Right then and there, it's
instantly apparent that someone could profit from saying God is
right and pointing out why during that business discussion.
So I see that and understand that since I do not want to
profit from God being right, that I will not put that link
on a for profit site.
> If you really believed that you could get more business from sharing
> God's word with your potential customers, you would be doing it.
No I wouldn't.
I know God is there, I am NOT going to have to explain myself
at judgement over "using God" to profit. As far as I'm concerned
the site is FOR GOD.
> This contrivance of yours is just an excuse you tell US, and, no doubt
> repeat to yourself, in order to get around the obvious issue of your
> failure to share your valuable information with more people. You make
> your own case below. Read on.
Bulloona.
It's posted daily on usenet... you're just trying to build
a case for something not there.
> >> You say that since you SPEW on usenet that it cannot be said that you
> >> aren't openly speaking your mind. I think you know that the
> >> percentage of people who casually use the internet who ALSO use usenet
> >> is relatively small.
> >
> >I've said that over and over.
> >
> >Ask Dan Fake, I asked as a general call to all readers, if anyone
> >read the ONE post, to reply that they'd read it... ONE person
> >replied.
> >
> >There's only a few that might read any one post... many less
> >that might read some obscure "work site".
>
> So, here, you ADMIT that you are getting very little consideration,
> and therefore relatively little traffic to your freely given
> information about God. You don't want to do something about that?
I said specifically that LESS people would read an obscure
work site... especially when it says I mostly work locally,
they wouldn't even read on after seeing "locally"... AND I
do NOT want to profit from God being right.
> It's simple numbers, John. Even if your work site gets little
> traffic, ANY possible directing to your innocent, non-profit,
> freely-given information site would be good, wouldn't it? Are you
> doing enough for your god?
Tell that to the money changers at the temple.
> >> Besides, the MORE people you can share this
> >> with, the better, right? It's amazing to me that someone would have
> >> to talk you into just one little link on your site that points to the
> >> stuff that REALLY matters in life. Your God.
> >
> >ha ha ha...
> >
> >There's an ENTIRE SITE and posts made daily pointing people to it.
>
> Yes, John, on USENET. You yourself said above that ONE person replied
> when you asked for a reply. You're happy to pepper your god site all
> over usenet, because you feel relatively SAFE doing that.
It's published all over the world, DAILY, one person reading maybe
this post, another some other post... it all adds up. God is right
and has been all along. If they get that out of it, fine.
But I don't mix a profit site, with one that I should NEVER
profit from.
> Are you really this complacent? Don't you EVER ask yourself, "Am I
> doing enough?" I guess not-- if you work at a grocery store and have
> a little wannabe "business" site. You're perfectly content in all
> aspects of life, striving for nothing. Even in sharing God's word you
> have grown slothful. For shame.
ha ha ha...
> Just tell us the truth--- you'd rather not put this on your work site
> because it's like Jeckyl and Hyde. Someone's perusing your little
> "business" site, where the grammar is halfway decent, and even the
> spelling, and no kookiness whatsoever. Suddenly, BAM, they follow a
> link and there are all these garish, horrible, clashing colors, and
> pictures of outer space with Jesus and fish and baskets and... god's
> EYE, and... hahhahahaa. Sorry, it's just too much for me. Had to
> laugh.
ha ha ha...
It's the SAME color scheme.
> >Meanwhile, some obscure work site...
> >
> >ha ha ha...
> >
> >Nobody bothers guy.
>
> Excuse.
>
> >And... I don't want to profit from God being right. The second I'd
> >put a link on a work site... that's when I'd feel like I had
> >profitted... from HIS own statements that were right.
>
> Excuse. How would you profit? This is repetitive.
Darn right it is.
You've been making THE SAME points so many times it's
getting really old, really quick.
> Why are you being so repetitive, John?
You keep saying the same stuff.
Do you think the replies will change if you do that????
That's like little kids asking "Why... why... why..."
Time to grow up guy.
> It has something to do with the flimsiness of
> your argument here. Your GOD knows what you are really thinking,
> John.
Exactly, and he knows I don't want to profit from him being right.
> >I shouldn't profit one cent from God being right. But others
> >should get all they can from him being right... God is their
> >creator, they need to know him... knowing him, they will profit.
>
> Okay, then, help people who are potential customers profit from
> knowing God!
The information is out there, they can see it any time
they want to.
> You are acting as if you can dismiss them because,
> well, that's business. The business should take a back seat to God,
> shouldn't it?
It's posted DAILY, a site specifically to say God is right.
And not a penny of profit from doing such.
That's the way it should be.
> Realistically, though, does whether or not they are
> customers matter to your God? If this evidence is so compelling that
> it might draw people to God, don't you think that He would want you to
> help them out? You still forget about preaching, John. You have a
> duty to show people the way, and to share this wonderful information,
> and you are FAILING to do so...
Again:
"And over here, fresh oranges... and how about Matthew
when he asked Jesus... with some Diet Coke in 2 liter..."
ha ha ha...
I don't think so.
> >> Furthermore, I have seen many, MANY private sites for small businesses
> >> that have that cute little Jesus fish in the corner... most people
> >> WANT you to know they are Christian because we ALL know you can TRUST
> >> a Christian, right? Well, you can really one-up these people,
> >> Boatwright! Forget the fish! You can show them your EVIDENCE, John!
> >> This is such a waste of potential!
> >
> >ha ha ha...
> >
> >That's what they want to do, but for me, I don't want to
> >profit from God being right.
> >
> >In fact, it says people can copy the site if they reference
> >where sections came from, or the entire stuff if it's left
> >intact as is.
> >
> >There is NOTHING stopping anyone from finding out that God
> >was right all along.
> >
> >Heck guy, it's in bibles HUNDREDS of years old, in MUSEUMS
> >all over the globe.
>
> Again, sigh, no one would accuse you of profiting. You need to just
> knock that straw man down and quit using it over and over. Do you
> actually think that to share this stuff would draw customers to you?
> It would be happening the other way around, John. I'm not talking
> about putting a link to your BUSINESS site from your God site. Think
> about that. I'm not talking about that.
The site is separate, it's link is posted DAILY, with discussion
about how God was right all along.
> If it's in books and museums, why bother posting about it? Why are
> you sharing it if this excuse works? And if you ARE sharing it, why
> not share it with MORE people? You keep avoiding this.
No I'm saying that God being right, his words are RECORDED in
books in museums that haven't changed over CENTURIES and they
specifically show he KNEW.
> >> You should feel GUILTY, John, for letting your (deep-seated,
> >> repressed, denial-laden) embarassment over your "evidence" keep you
> >> from sharing your true feelings with people who come to your site.
> >> Don't you WANT them to know that you're not ONLY a Christian, but one
> >> with more powerful evidence than the average Christian?
> >
> >It's posted DAILY, sure there's a few times when I can't post
> >during the week, but heck, us grocery store clerks can't
> >post each and every day... but mostly, it's out there in force.
> >
> >In contrast, I can't recall EVER posting that someone should see
> >a work site, heck that's considered to be spam and seems ridiculous
> >since I mostly only work locally.
>
> In force, eh? Keep telling yourself that.
Sure, why not.
> It's posted Daily on Usenet, yes. You feel that is enough, do you?
> Tsk tsk.
It seems that it's enough.
If others want to say God was right, they can too.
> No one is asking you to post HERE referencing your work site. Who
> ever said that? Now you are REALLY starting to go crazy here. You're
> forgetting what we are talking about.
You're the one that's been bringing up a work site and wanting
to discuss it, saying I should add links and such. The work
site is there, and runs just fine, with no chance of profitting
from God being right.
Looks good to me.
> >I openly discuss God being right. Work is work though, and I
> >shouldn't profit from God being right.
>
> Straw man. Boring. Repetitive. You're repeating this for YOUR
> benefit, John. You need to believe this so you can sleep at night
> knowing you aren't doing all you can for the personal reason of not
> wanting to drive customers AWAY. You ARE profiting, John, from
> LEAVING THAT CRAP OFF YOUR WORK SITE. You know it.
ha ha ha...
God exists, God was right all along.
Pointing that out, who knows how much profit there'd be
in that... of which, I don't want to know. Said profit
wouldn't make a hill of beans at judgement.
> When Jesus asks you why you didn't share, He will know that you didn't
> share because you felt safe linking to it on Usenet, but you didn't
> want to risk your little business traffic by sharing it with other
> people who may have come THERE who have no idea about Usenet.
No, I have gotten email from people that believe God. If
they read a site saying God is right, that might make them
more likely to do business... much like the money changers
at the temple.
> You will say, from your lips, "Jesus, I didn't want to PROFIT from God
> being right," but you will know, as you say it, that it is a weak-ass
> excuse. Think about that coming moment, John. You will feel so
> ashamed.
Nope, I'll be completely content with the knowledge that I didn't
profit from saying God was right.
> >> BUT--
> >>
> >> It's your GOD that you will have to deal with on THIS one, John.
> >> Think about that. Hard. Till it hurts. You know I'm right.
> >
> >Bulloona.
>
> Aw, John, is "Bulloona" the best you can do here? I think it is. I
> think you know I'm right here, and you will NEVER share your info any
> more than you are doing now. That is an UTTER FAILURE on your part to
> share your information with as MANY people as possible.
Like I said, it's already linked on several atheist sites.
Are you saying no one reads atheist sites?
ha ha ha...
Maybe that's what you're really concerned about, that atheists
link to it... who knows.
> Pointing out that it's been in the Bible, or Museums, is a COPOUT,
> John, and do you want to know why? It's a copout because the format
> in which you present this unique, thought out point of view can not be
> seen in a museum, or in the Bible. Christians buy books all the time
> by authors that have their own way to explain their views. Why should
> you be any different? Don't even think of it as recognition or
> profit. Think of it from the simple motivation of wanting to share
> what you know with other people. Don't you WANT to do that, John?
Uh... if you hadn't noticed, the site is up, it exists:
http://For-God.net
There is no attempt to cover it up, and quite the opposite,
there is DAILY posting about it.
But there is no link on a for profit site.
> I think that you don't.
I think you just want something to complain about.
Bored With The Boring Again
<na...@For-God.net> wrote:
[an incredible amount of bullshit about hiding his "god" website]
You are one of the most mendacious, hypocritical, dishonest lying
pieces of godshit ever to draw breath. Any human being with more than
three working neurons would know that if a potential customer going to
an engineering website were to come across the kind of utterly insane
and scientifically impossible DRIVEL you call "science" would have
just cause to wonder whether or not you were playing with a full deck.
(which we already know for a fact.)
John P. Boatwright
>
> <na...@For-God.net> wrote:
>
> [an incredible amount of bullshit about hiding his "god" website]
Nah.
It's not hidden, this site is posted DAILY:
It is >>> NOT <<< hidden.
And I am NOT going to profit from God being right. I will not
place that link on a for profit site.
> You are one of the most mendacious, hypocritical, dishonest lying
> pieces of godshit ever to draw breath.
Bulloona.
A pile of atheists were claiming that I was a grocery store
clerk in Florida... why should I care if they say such???
Your and their "big deal" is to trash theists... so trash away.
You wanted me to be a store clerk... fine... 'cuz I really
am one. Resume's often times include the old standard: the
grocery store clerk... yep, they were right.
> Any human being with more than
> three working neurons would know that if a potential customer going to
> an engineering website were to come across the kind of utterly insane
> and scientifically impossible DRIVEL you call "science" would have
> just cause to wonder whether or not you were playing with a full deck.
> (which we already know for a fact.)
ha ha ha...
Even NASA >>> STILL <<< claims they don't know how planets
formed... they're still trying to figure it out.
Yet this theory has been out there for over 3.5 years now:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/snpro
It answers planet formation and the RINGS seen leaving SN1987A.
It also answers the hourglass formations and DISK seen leaving
Eta Carina... and the Ant Nebula, etc... and it aligns with
what God said in Genesis, Job, Ezekiel, and Isaiah about how
HE formed our solar system. HIS descriptions were correctly given
over 3300 years ago... we're all WAY BEHIND... God already said
what he did and his descriptions are correct.
The TIMING of the events in Genesis matches science data to
208,000,000:1 odds of God being the source of the text. That
right there easily approaches the level of error expected for
proper data received using 32 bit CRC's, only a factor of
20X off. When you include the PHRASES, it becomes astronomical
in odds, vastly out doing the best data transmission standards.
Sure, you can claim some grocery store clerk is insane, but
don't forget, the bible says, the heavens separated like a
scroll.
They did.
Jesus said the eagles would gather to the carcase.
They did.
God said there'd be TWO WITNESSES as golden pipes
on either side of God.
There are.
Jesus is the ARM OF GOD, there are two witnesses on
either side of Jesus... two witnesses clothed in
SACK CLOTH.
Ezekiel 1 describes what you see here, verse after verse after
verse:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/eze1.pdf (150K PDF file)
which includes said heavens separating like a scroll along
with the shot out firmament, the creatures with the appearance
of BURNING COALS on the upper right corner of the garment,
always traveling forwards all over the world... just like
Ezekiel said.
The verses shown matching are here:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/ezek1.htm
God said the truth, he knew it all CENTURIES in advance
and said what needed to be said to show he is the creator,
just like he said he is.
Bored With The Boring Again
<na...@For-God.net> wrote:
>Bored With The Boring Again wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 28 May 2001 13:59:13 -0700, "John P. Boatwright"
>> <na...@For-God.net> wrote:
>>
>> [an incredible amount of bullshit about hiding his "god" website]
>
>Nah.
>
>It's not hidden, this site is posted DAILY:
It is not acessible from http://www.salad-e.com/
It is hidden. If you are so confident of what you have to say, then
place a link to your "4god" site on the main page. Or are you too
cowardly to do that.
>
>http://For-God.net
>
>It is >>> NOT <<< hidden.
Not from alt.atheism. From customers perhaps.
>
>And I am NOT going to profit from God being right. I will not
>place that link on a for profit site.
For a mighty christian, you sure are a pansy.
>> You are one of the most mendacious, hypocritical, dishonest lying
>> pieces of godshit ever to draw breath.
>
>Bulloona.
Truth.
>A pile of atheists were claiming that I was a grocery store
>clerk in Florida... why should I care if they say such???
>Your and their "big deal" is to trash theists... so trash away.
>You wanted me to be a store clerk... fine... 'cuz I really
>am one. Resume's often times include the old standard: the
>grocery store clerk... yep, they were right.
>
>> Any human being with more than
>> three working neurons would know that if a potential customer going to
>> an engineering website were to come across the kind of utterly insane
>> and scientifically impossible DRIVEL you call "science" would have
>> just cause to wonder whether or not you were playing with a full deck.
>> (which we already know for a fact.)
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>Even NASA >>> STILL <<< claims they don't know how planets
>formed... they're still trying to figure it out.
Go fucking tell them, dammit.
http://www.nasa.gov/qanda/why_nasa.html#engineers
>Yet this theory has been out there for over 3.5 years now:
>
>http://www.teleport.com/~salad/snpro
>
>It answers planet formation and the RINGS seen leaving SN1987A.
>It also answers the hourglass formations and DISK seen leaving
>Eta Carina... and the Ant Nebula, etc... and it aligns with
>what God said in Genesis, Job, Ezekiel, and Isaiah about how
>HE formed our solar system. HIS descriptions were correctly given
>over 3300 years ago... we're all WAY BEHIND... God already said
>what he did and his descriptions are correct.
I am so sure that they will be thrilled to hear this. <snicker>
>The TIMING of the events in Genesis matches science data to
>208,000,000:1 odds of God being the source of the text. That
>right there easily approaches the level of error expected for
>proper data received using 32 bit CRC's, only a factor of
>20X off. When you include the PHRASES, it becomes astronomical
>in odds, vastly out doing the best data transmission standards.
Like I said big boy, tell NASA. (And don't leave anything out.)
Al Klein
With The Boring Again") posted in alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 27 May 2001 01:16:59 GMT, ew...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net
>(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>>My brain needs food bad.
>Drink a couple of Guinnesses. ;-)
He said food bad, not bad food.
John P. Boatwright
>
> On Mon, 28 May 2001 18:50:08 -0700, "John P. Boatwright"
> <na...@For-God.net> wrote:
>
> >Bored With The Boring Again wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 28 May 2001 13:59:13 -0700, "John P. Boatwright"
> >> <na...@For-God.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> [an incredible amount of bullshit about hiding his "god" website]
> >
> >Nah.
> >
> >It's not hidden, this site is posted DAILY:
>
> It is not acessible from http://www.salad-e.com/
Exactly.
That's a for profit site, I do NOT want to profit
from pointing out that God was right. God being
right, that should profit those finding out God
was right and should definitely profit God in that
it's his scriptures being discussed... his creation
confirming he was the source of it.
God's own statements show he is the source of his
creation, I'm happy that he knew, happy that he said
what he said, and it's fine with me that it's that
way... but I don't want to profit from it.
> It is hidden. If you are so confident of what you have to say, then
> place a link to your "4god" site on the main page. Or are you too
> cowardly to do that.
The http://For-God.net site is posted daily.
The other site is a separate for profit site.
Again, I do NOT want to profit from God being right
so there won't be any link put on a for profit site.
The second I put a link on a for profit site, a link
showing God is correct, that second, I would feel that
I was going to profit and I don't want to.
> >http://For-God.net
> >
> >It is >>> NOT <<< hidden.
>
> Not from alt.atheism. From customers perhaps.
... and I don't want to profit from them feeling some
positive feeling or whatever over God being right.
> >And I am NOT going to profit from God being right. I will not
> >place that link on a for profit site.
>
> For a mighty christian, you sure are a pansy.
I >>> KNOW <<< God is there.
I do NOT want to explain to God why I'd have any means of
profiting from his being right. His being right should
profit him, or others finding out that he's right.
> >> You are one of the most mendacious, hypocritical, dishonest lying
> >> pieces of godshit ever to draw breath.
> >
> >Bulloona.
>
> Truth.
Nah.
> >A pile of atheists were claiming that I was a grocery store
> >clerk in Florida... why should I care if they say such???
> >Your and their "big deal" is to trash theists... so trash away.
> >You wanted me to be a store clerk... fine... 'cuz I really
> >am one. Resume's often times include the old standard: the
> >grocery store clerk... yep, they were right.
> >
> >> Any human being with more than
> >> three working neurons would know that if a potential customer going to
> >> an engineering website were to come across the kind of utterly insane
> >> and scientifically impossible DRIVEL you call "science" would have
> >> just cause to wonder whether or not you were playing with a full deck.
> >> (which we already know for a fact.)
> >
> >ha ha ha...
> >
> >Even NASA >>> STILL <<< claims they don't know how planets
> >formed... they're still trying to figure it out.
>
> Go fucking tell them, dammit.
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/qanda/why_nasa.html#engineers
ha ha ha...
There was a NASA public relations guy on alt.atheism about
3 or 4 years ago, he knows this theory:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/snpro
Then there's Rosa on alt.atheism, who works on the Chandra project.
Then there's Petey boy on alt.atheism, he claims he does
solar physics... studying maps of the interior of the sun.
ha ha ha...
Uh.. where was I...
Then there was a few months posting on alt.astronomy, and
about 3 other astronomy newsgroups... of which they nearly
had my Teleport account canceled >>> TWICE <<< over months,
saying a theist couldn't discuss SCIENCE results... OK...
Anyway, that theory's been thoroughly rejected, science
tossed it out over and over and over again.
But...
See Chandra results for Nov 2000...
ha ha ha...
NEW stars burning VERY HOT, very bright >>> BEFORE <<<
the inner core begins it's fusion.
They were WRONG... that theory is EASILY right... and
of course, that theory being NEVER confirmed by science,
I went to the source: God. What God said in the scriptures,
it confirms the theory. That says NO ONE can ever say
that God hadn't said something BEFORE science did, giving
out the CORRECT statements BEFORE science knew.
Their recent data shows that they are BEHIND... THOUSANDS
of years behind.
God already knew how he made his creation and told
Moses 3300 years ago in Genesis 1. In Job, he confirmed
that they didn't know what a "firmament" is... and then
proceeded to say what a "firmament" is... and God was
right in what he said.
> >Yet this theory has been out there for over 3.5 years now:
> >
> >http://www.teleport.com/~salad/snpro
> >
> >It answers planet formation and the RINGS seen leaving SN1987A.
> >It also answers the hourglass formations and DISK seen leaving
> >Eta Carina... and the Ant Nebula, etc... and it aligns with
> >what God said in Genesis, Job, Ezekiel, and Isaiah about how
> >HE formed our solar system. HIS descriptions were correctly given
> >over 3300 years ago... we're all WAY BEHIND... God already said
> >what he did and his descriptions are correct.
>
> I am so sure that they will be thrilled to hear this. <snicker>
They're catching up, give 'em time to figure it out.
> >The TIMING of the events in Genesis matches science data to
> >208,000,000:1 odds of God being the source of the text. That
> >right there easily approaches the level of error expected for
> >proper data received using 32 bit CRC's, only a factor of
> >20X off. When you include the PHRASES, it becomes astronomical
> >in odds, vastly out doing the best data transmission standards.
>
> Like I said big boy, tell NASA. (And don't leave anything out.)
They've already been told... 3 or 4 years ago.
Alex Hunsley
John, John.... you've got it the wrong round I'm afraid. If you were not
wanting to profit from god(tm), you would have a link *from* your
engineering site *to* the god(tm) site, and not the other way round. The
way it is now, I can go to www.google.com, and search for "Proof genesis
was given by god", and the first site that comes up is
www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/genesis.htm, your god-bot site. If I remove
the 4god bit from that URL, I find your engineering site. Oh, what if I
needed some engineering, and bought your services? You've just profited
from god, John. Would god be pleased?
Basically, if you really believe in god, and it's not some psychological
crutch for you (which I think it is), I think you are now required to
host your god site on a different server. Either that, or buy lots of
asbestos Y fronts...
alex
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
John D. Leckie
do, as I checked later than usual and have to head out the door in a
few minutes, so I'll ask one simple question, just to keep this thing
alive... because I really enjoy watching you squirm on this.
Here it comes, John. End all tasks except this one so you can
concentrate on it:
Trust me, your business would NOT, in ANY way, profit from linking to
your God site.
Refute that.
John
On Mon, 28 May 2001 20:51:39 -0700, "John P. Boatwright"
Alex Hunsley
This is an 'advantage', of sorts, of atheism - yer average atheist
doesn't believe in heaven or hell, and if there isn't heaven or hell or
afterlife, when they die that it, lights out. But at least the atheist
knew the truth. Now if there is a heaven/hell, at least the atheist will
get to correct their knowledge, and thus again, they will know the
truth.
Whereas for the theist, if when they die it's just lights out, that's
it, and they don't even get to realise that their belief was nonsense.
It's annoying in a strange way :)
The Ghost In The Machine
<ruk...@pern.org>
wrote
on Tue, 29 May 2001 03:01:57 GMT
<ja46ht0tjdat9j35o...@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 27 May 2001 02:20:01 GMT, fire...@god.airmail.net ("Bored
>With The Boring Again") posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>On Sun, 27 May 2001 01:16:59 GMT, ew...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net
>>(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>>>My brain needs food bad.
>
>>Drink a couple of Guinnesses. ;-)
>
>He said food bad, not bad food.
Heh....Guinesses is good food to some. Me, I went out and
got something from Taco Bell, as I recall. :-)
Still beats wine and crackers. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 29d:10h:53m actually running Linux.
Life's getting too complicated, even listening to the radio.
Robibnikoff
Machine says...
>
>In talk.atheism, Al Klein
><ruk...@pern.org>
> wrote
>on Tue, 29 May 2001 03:01:57 GMT
><ja46ht0tjdat9j35o...@4ax.com>:
>>On Sun, 27 May 2001 02:20:01 GMT, fire...@god.airmail.net ("Bored
>>With The Boring Again") posted in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 May 2001 01:16:59 GMT, ew...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net
>>>(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>>
>>>>My brain needs food bad.
>>
>>>Drink a couple of Guinnesses. ;-)
>>
>>He said food bad, not bad food.
>
>Heh....Guinesses is good food to some. Me, I went out and
>got something from Taco Bell, as I recall. :-)
>
>Still beats wine and crackers. :-)
Blasphemy!!! You forgot the cheese, of course ;)
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo and EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Delighted Member of SMASH
Bored With The Boring Again
wrote:
>Okay, John Boatwright, I don't have as much time today as I usually
>do, as I checked later than usual and have to head out the door in a
>few minutes, so I'll ask one simple question, just to keep this thing
>alive... because I really enjoy watching you squirm on this.
>
>Here it comes, John. End all tasks except this one so you can
>concentrate on it:
>
>
>Trust me, your business would NOT, in ANY way, profit from linking to
>your God site.
>
>Refute that.
He cannot, and that is the point I have been making all along. If
there was a "god link" on his main site, potential customers might be
inclined to follow it just to see what was there. And if I know my
engineering-customer type people, they would go "Ooo-kay! If he's
-that- far out in left field, I think I better check out this -other-
site". (as in the guy down the street)
In other words BAD FOR BUSINESS.
The Ghost In The Machine
<nos...@newsranger.com>
wrote
on Tue, 29 May 2001 18:16:28 GMT
<0IRQ6.4003$rn5.2...@www.newsranger.com>:
Well, I was thinking *unleavened* crackers, but yes,
wine, cheese, and (regular) crackers would make a reasonably
good appetizer -- if served on a platter in a cozy environment
such as an apartment or home, and not next to the
collection-plate in a certain building, after listening
to some guy preach about how good it is to accept this
rather strange dead/not-dead individual into one's heart.... :-)
The roast beef would come later, of course...
[.sigsnip]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random yummy notions here
EAC code #191 29d:23h:53m actually running Linux.
[ ] Do you want this message to be private? Oops, too late.
John D. Leckie
With The Boring Again") wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2001 14:08:14 +0200, John D. Leckie <igh...@yahoo.de>
>wrote:
>
>>Okay, John Boatwright, I don't have as much time today as I usually
>>do, as I checked later than usual and have to head out the door in a
>>few minutes, so I'll ask one simple question, just to keep this thing
>>alive... because I really enjoy watching you squirm on this.
>>
>>Here it comes, John. End all tasks except this one so you can
>>concentrate on it:
>>
>>
>>Trust me, your business would NOT, in ANY way, profit from linking to
>>your God site.
>>
>>Refute that.
>
>He cannot, and that is the point I have been making all along. If
>there was a "god link" on his main site, potential customers might be
>inclined to follow it just to see what was there. And if I know my
>engineering-customer type people, they would go "Ooo-kay! If he's
>-that- far out in left field, I think I better check out this -other-
>site". (as in the guy down the street)
>
>In other words BAD FOR BUSINESS.
Well, you know that, and I know that. I'm trying to figure out how
John can possibly believe that it could be good for his business. I
want to hear him explain that. More than likely, the refutation will
consist of the word "Bulloona," or any of the other things he uses to
substitute denial for content (i.e. Ha ha ha), but I'm hoping he'll
put more thought into it than that.
I am beginning to have less and less doubt that he really is a grocery
store clerk with relatively no education. Let's wait and see what he
says to this question of mine. I'm not doing this to tease him,
either. I'd really like to know how he believes that godsite would
be good for his business.
He may take this as a compliment, but I think he's smart enough to
know that it's bad for business, and he's been tap-dancing around that
like a cat on a hot-plate this entire thread. He keeps repeating that
he posts it, but he ignores my refutation "yeah, to Usenet, and why
not elsewhere..." So you know what he's doing, don't you? He's
LYING. Repeatedly. His psychological motivations for the lying don't
matter. As far as his god would be concerned, he's sinning every time
he posts most anything to Usenet.
He is doing this for himself. His whole posting history shows this.
I think he sees himself as a martyr for Jesus or something. Yeah, he
posts his site daily-- to places that atheists frequent, and on Usenet
at that. That's a paltry amount of exposure, but he tells himself
that posting it daily means he's doing his job for god.
Ah, but are you willing to be a martyr for Jesus in such a way that it
hurts your WALLET, John? Noooooo. :) That's what would happen.
He would LOSE BUSINESS if any potential customer got wind of that
drivel on his site. Wackos don't do good business. Just look at the
contrast between his business site and his god site. Jeckyl and Hyde,
man. You're right. Any customer would slowly back away from the
computer at that point. AND JOHN KNOWS THIS.
He knows how this stuff looks to sane people with any scientific
education whatsoever. He is throwing it in our faces because he
thinks he can BS his way through it with a bunch of atheists with a
lay education in science and cosmology. But atheists tend to be
better versed in that stuff than he anticipated.
So, what does John say about education? He says it doesn't matter.
He scoffs at accredited degrees, and he does that for his own good.
To do otherwise would be admitting he's ill-equipped to debate such
subjects. When he says any grocery store clerk knows all the science
he needs to in order to understand the universe, he's doing that for
himself. He says he "doesn't buy" science's theories on the universe,
but HE DOESN'T HAVE THE CURRENCY TO BUY ANY OF IT WITH.
His arguments stem from incredulity and a lack of education. He
wouldn't understand science if it bit him on the ass. He has ALL he
needs to understand the universe. The bible, and his insanity-hued
imagination.
John, if you're reading this, I'd like to ask a little side question
here. How do you explain your assertion that Jupiter has a solid
surface? I read a quote that Yang put up where you said that. Do you
still believe that? What did any of that have to do with your god,
anyway?
Yeah, well, look at me. I ranted. Hehehe. Okay I'll quit now and
wait and see his explanation of how that site is good for business,
and therefore something he must avoid in order not to "profit from
God's being right."
John
Robibnikoff
Hmmm...Indeed. Sorry, but I didn't get the religious reference ;)
>
>The roast beef would come later, of course...
A little Filet de Jesus perhaps?
The Ghost In The Machine
<Cr5R6.5089$rn5.2...@www.newsranger.com>:
'SOK. :-)
>
>>
>>The roast beef would come later, of course...
>
>A little Filet de Jesus perhaps?
Naaah. I want real cow. None of this sham stuff. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random munchies here
EAC code #191 30d:14h:36m actually running Linux.
This is the best part of the message.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Blasphemy!!! You forgot the cheese, of course ;)
If you're Celtic, Robyn, you just have to love Guinness. It's in the
rules.
Bored With The Boring Again
wrote:
I figure he'll do as he usually does, break and run.
>I am beginning to have less and less doubt that he really is a grocery
>store clerk with relatively no education. Let's wait and see what he
>says to this question of mine. I'm not doing this to tease him,
>either. I'd really like to know how he believes that godsite would
>be good for his business.
If he's a grocery clerk, then how the hell did his god page get linked
to an engineering site? Of course, I know an engineer where I work
who does subscribe to the "intelligent design" concept.
>He may take this as a compliment, but I think he's smart enough to
>know that it's bad for business, and he's been tap-dancing around that
>like a cat on a hot-plate this entire thread. He keeps repeating that
>he posts it, but he ignores my refutation "yeah, to Usenet, and why
>not elsewhere..." So you know what he's doing, don't you? He's
>LYING. Repeatedly. His psychological motivations for the lying don't
>matter. As far as his god would be concerned, he's sinning every time
>he posts most anything to Usenet.
Of course. But johnboy is noted for his selective awareness.
>He is doing this for himself. His whole posting history shows this.
>I think he sees himself as a martyr for Jesus or something. Yeah, he
>posts his site daily-- to places that atheists frequent, and on Usenet
>at that. That's a paltry amount of exposure, but he tells himself
>that posting it daily means he's doing his job for god.
And no doubt, he sincerely believes it. OTOH, he could be running it
past us for the purpose of "fine-tuning" his presentation. Except his
drivel doesn't change.
>Ah, but are you willing to be a martyr for Jesus in such a way that it
>hurts your WALLET, John? Noooooo. :) That's what would happen.
>He would LOSE BUSINESS if any potential customer got wind of that
>drivel on his site. Wackos don't do good business. Just look at the
>contrast between his business site and his god site. Jeckyl and Hyde,
>man. You're right. Any customer would slowly back away from the
>computer at that point. AND JOHN KNOWS THIS.
>
>He knows how this stuff looks to sane people with any scientific
>education whatsoever. He is throwing it in our faces because he
>thinks he can BS his way through it with a bunch of atheists with a
>lay education in science and cosmology. But atheists tend to be
>better versed in that stuff than he anticipated.
Yep. Even relatively unsophisticated atheists have better scientific
knowleddge and awareness that most christers. , even if they cannot
refute john's crap point by point. I think john's idea runs along the
lines of "I know this is all bullshit, but I'm banking on the readers
not to do thier homework."
>So, what does John say about education? He says it doesn't matter.
>He scoffs at accredited degrees, and he does that for his own good.
>To do otherwise would be admitting he's ill-equipped to debate such
>subjects. When he says any grocery store clerk knows all the science
>he needs to in order to understand the universe, he's doing that for
>himself. He says he "doesn't buy" science's theories on the universe,
>but HE DOESN'T HAVE THE CURRENCY TO BUY ANY OF IT WITH.
Like a mind?
>His arguments stem from incredulity and a lack of education. He
>wouldn't understand science if it bit him on the ass. He has ALL he
>needs to understand the universe. The bible, and his insanity-hued
>imagination.
You have to give him credit for that imagination of his. It is
definitely on the comedic side.
>John, if you're reading this, I'd like to ask a little side question
>here. How do you explain your assertion that Jupiter has a solid
>surface? I read a quote that Yang put up where you said that. Do you
>still believe that? What did any of that have to do with your god,
>anyway?
>
>Yeah, well, look at me. I ranted. Hehehe. Okay I'll quit now and
>wait and see his explanation of how that site is good for business,
>and therefore something he must avoid in order not to "profit from
>God's being right."
Hey, I enjoyed it.
Al Klein
(The Ghost In The Machine) posted in alt.atheism:
>In talk.atheism, Al Klein
><ruk...@pern.org>
> wrote
>on Tue, 29 May 2001 03:01:57 GMT
><ja46ht0tjdat9j35o...@4ax.com>:
>>On Sun, 27 May 2001 02:20:01 GMT, fire...@god.airmail.net ("Bored
>>With The Boring Again") posted in alt.atheism:
>>>On Sun, 27 May 2001 01:16:59 GMT, ew...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net
>>>(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>>>>My brain needs food bad.
>>>Drink a couple of Guinnesses. ;-)
>>He said food bad, not bad food.
>Heh....Guinesses is good food to some.
Now you're talking like my wife. :)
> Me, I went out and
>got something from Taco Bell, as I recall. :-)
As long as it comes with a lot of pickled jalepeno peppers, it's gotta
be good.
John P. Boatwright
Nobody bothers to check that kinda stuff... if they had,
how'd they go on for >>> YEARS <<< saying I was a grocery
store clerk???
eh?
ha ha ha...
Basically, people go to a site and see whatever, then move on.
All this "back up and whatever" stuff is for NOSEY people,
which most people do NOT care.
At the time the site was originally set up, it was free to
do it as it was done, another site would have been more cost,
the FOR GOD site was all done for free.
Now on another server, it can have it's own free site and
the stuff you and others are going off about (just because)
won't be any issue... the site sits alone, no backing up.
> Basically, if you really believe in god, and it's not some psychological
> crutch for you (which I think it is), I think you are now required to
> host your god site on a different server. Either that, or buy lots of
> asbestos Y fronts...
ha ha ha...
http://For-God.net is already on a separate server.
I'm not sure what to do with the other... figure it out
later, who knows.
You guys are being overly picky... most people are either
looking for one item, or the other, not both. The FOR GOD
site is >>> for God <<<, the other site is for profit, so
I don't put the link on the for profit site since I NEVER
want to profit from God being right... he was right long
before I was born, long before the USA existed, long before
most nations existed... I NEVER want to profit from God
having been right... he deserves every last bit of credit
and/or profit for HIS being right all that time and all the
time before he said what he did when HE made HIS creation.
John P. Boatwright
>
> Okay, John Boatwright, I don't have as much time today as I usually
> do, as I checked later than usual and have to head out the door in a
> few minutes, so I'll ask one simple question, just to keep this thing
> alive... because I really enjoy watching you squirm on this.
>
> Here it comes, John. End all tasks except this one so you can
> concentrate on it:
ha ha ha...
> Trust me, your business would NOT, in ANY way, profit from linking to
> your God site.
That's right, since there's NEVER going to be a link on a
for profit site to the site showing God was right all along.
> Refute that.
ha ha ha...
If you had an email from some head whatever at a multi-billion
dollar company saying he really believes God etc... and if he
had found out that God was incredibly right through a link on
a for profit site, there's no telling what level profit that
would occur... so... that just isn't going to happen.
God being right is and should be a FREE item, any profit that
might show up should be for God, or for those figuring it out.
Some obscure work site doesn't play into any of it and never
will.
John P. Boatwright
>
> wrote:
>
> >Okay, John Boatwright, I don't have as much time today as I usually
> >do, as I checked later than usual and have to head out the door in a
> >few minutes, so I'll ask one simple question, just to keep this thing
> >alive... because I really enjoy watching you squirm on this.
> >
> >Here it comes, John. End all tasks except this one so you can
> >concentrate on it:
> >
> >
> >Trust me, your business would NOT, in ANY way, profit from linking to
> >your God site.
> >
> >Refute that.
>
> He cannot, and that is the point I have been making all along. If
> there was a "god link" on his main site, potential customers might be
> inclined to follow it just to see what was there. And if I know my
> engineering-customer type people, they would go "Ooo-kay! If he's
> -that- far out in left field, I think I better check out this -other-
> site". (as in the guy down the street)
>
> In other words BAD FOR BUSINESS.
ha ha ha...
I've told companies to toss me out... they don't do it,
I have NO IDEA why. They probably should, but they don't.
From what you're saying, it's all on the edge, I'm toast
if I don't say just the right thing... dress just right...
talk just right... blah blah blah...
Point blank: Nobody cares.
They want work done... period.
Someone off showing God is right, in their spare time...they
just don't care.
So your claims about "hiding" a site for God, from my
perspective, you're DREAMING.
My entire point is that I SHOULD NOT PROFIT from God
being right. So I take whatever steps are necessary
to ensure that doesn't happen: pointing out it's freely
given, and not posting a link on a for profit site.
God was right THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, I'm a mere fraction
of that age and he was right THOUSANDS of times more
than the THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO... God was right BILLIONS
of YEARS ago... that's an unbelievable amount of time
for him to remember exactly what he did all that time.
The best thing for me to do, is to just point out that
God was right and HOPE that I NEVER profit from it... it's
his stuff being discussed... it's HIS being right being
discussed... he deserves all the credit and profit
possible for his making his creation and his having said
what he did long before anyone knew about or understood
what he'd done.
John P. Boatwright
>
> >Subject: Re: Boatwright violates one of the Ten Commandments.
> >From: "John P. Boatwright" na...@salad-e.com
> >Date: 5/26/01 10:48 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <3B1079...@salad-e.com>
> >
> >JulieKale wrote:
> >> >Carl Sagan is DEAD!
> >> >
> >> >Darn right you'd be impressed. :)
> >>
> >> You know what I mean. LOL.
> >
> >But him and other DEAD atheists can't say much more than what
> >they already said. There's only two choices:
> >
> >1. They're dead and were wrong.
> >2. They're dead and you'll never know if they were right.
>
God is a reliable source, he told lots of people stuff
for quite some time.
> >You in being alive, you're basing your judgement on
> >whether or not God exists, him being alive and your
> >creator, based on what some dead people said... when
> >they clearly could NOT say 100% that God existed or not.
> >
> >The difference for me is, I'm basing it on what some
> >dead people said that KNEW he was there, AND the fact
> >that what God said, it's KNOWN to be correctly given.
>
> Heh heh. John, seriously, this is our big disagreement and it always will be.
> You take things and twist them into whatever you want them to be. You don't
> know that the writers of the bible KNEW anything. They could have made it all
> up for all you know.
Nah.
The scriptures... the scripture say stuff going on
RIGHT NOW.
Didn't you see the one post (several actually) where
what's happened to the Jews over THOUSANDS OF YEARS
was listed verse after verse???
Basically, without ANY bother to retranslate the text,
God told them:
1. Some day off in the future, they'll say that leaving
Egypt was a MYTH... that it never occurred.
They say that present day... see alt.atheism for
details... all over the WORLD, them saying it
seems to be a MYTH.
2. But instead, that they'd say "Well looky there,
the Jews came back to Israel after all that time,
back to the same land given to their ancestors,
listed right in the scriptures that God gave 'em it.
AND that God had driven them out, into the north
countries, all over the place... but that they'd
be returning... that people would discuss it saying
that's how you know the Jews anymore.
A WORLD WIDE ITEM... God was right about it.
3. God said he'd send people to FISH THEM.
See Jesus telling his apostles to be FISHERS OF MEN.
4. God also said they'd be HUNTED... and you can ask
Jews all about that... they have no problems telling
whatever you want to know about being hunted.
Yet God said that in the OLD TESTAMENT, he even said that
it was for the FUTURE... stuff to HAPPEN LATER... yet
he told them BEFORE it happened.
> >You're basing your DOUBT on LACK of knowledge from DEAD
> >people claiming they didn't think God could be there.
> >They can't change what they said, yet also can't confirm
> >their rejecting of God as being right.
>
> No, I am basing my doubt on sources which are far more reliable than you and
> your claims that you can see biblical scenes in outerspace.
Julie, the bible says specifically that the heavens
would separate like a scroll.
They did.
> >I'm basing my KNOWING God is there on what DEAD people
> >said that KNEW God is there, and things God said that
> >MATCH what no one could have known other than God back
> >when it was said it... and PRESENT DAY stuff occuring
> >amoung LIVING people that matches what God predicted.
>
> This is, as always, a matter of interpretation.
Somewhat, but again, the heavens did separate like a scroll
and it's kinda odd how God knew about it BEFORE it occurred.
Him knowing such just confirms to me that he's God.
I guess you don't want him to be there, so you believe
whatever your DOUBT allows you to believe.
> >Even
> >> you, despite your claims, use mathematics and science as a reference point.
> >You
> >> need these things, just like the rest of us.
> >
> >I look at what God said, research it, and do what the bible
> >said to do: "prove all things, hold fast that which is good".
>
> And you are doing it with the same man made techniques that you are telling me
> to reject? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either I can depend on
> science or I can't. Which is it?
I'm saying you're NOT applying the same level of doubt to
everything you see.
When science claims there's >>> 11 <<< dimensions and that
somehow allows NOTHING to make everything... I just don't
see you laughing about it much.
ha ha ha...
For me though, those 11 dimensions are part of something you'd
expect hear about from a drunk about to pass out.
Bored With The Boring Again
<na...@For-God.net> wrote:
>God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Where did god come from? And what self-respecting Mexican would want
to die for -anybody's- sins?
Bored With The Boring Again
<na...@For-God.net> wrote:
Most of us -are- NOSEY people. Whether it is our nose in a book,
backing up to root on a website, asking nosey questions, or sometimes
literally following people around if warranted, yes, we are NOSEY.
That's how we learn things.
>At the time the site was originally set up, it was free to
>do it as it was done, another site would have been more cost,
>the FOR GOD site was all done for free.
>
>Now on another server, it can have it's own free site and
>the stuff you and others are going off about (just because)
>won't be any issue... the site sits alone, no backing up.
'Bout time you figured it out. Now, maybe your business will improve.
;-)
Bored With The Boring Again
You're missing out on a fantastic business opportunity, John.
Bored With The Boring Again
You're missing out on a mint, dude. Anybody as dishonest as you are
should already be a millionaire.
Puck Greenman
Boring Again") wrote:
>On Tue, 22 May 2001 19:09:37 +0200, John D. Leckie <igh...@yahoo.de>
>wrote:
>
>>Well, yes, this conclusion is easy to reach if you just follow one of
>>his amusing links and just go back to the parent directory.
>>
>>I suspect that he IS salad engineering, actually. If he can post
>>stuff like that to the same webspact taken up by his so-called
>>"company," and he's still IN the company, he must BE the company.
>>Otherwise, any sane company would have thrown him out. :)
>>
>>But I'd like to hear it from him, if that's the case. Still waiting
>>to hear what Boaty really does...
>
>One job a year and spends the rest of the time in alt.atheism making a
>total ass of himself?
>
>
That "Salad Engineering" has got an Oregon URL, at least that is what
it looked like; and wasn't he going to meet someone in Seattle one time?