Yet another black eye for the Evolutionists : Fossils
old man joe
everybody knows that certain conditions of what they call " nature " must, of necessity,
be in play in order to make a fossil out of bones and teeth of dinosaur's. these certain
conditions must be in play also for organic remains to be fossilize.
when a dinosaur was killed by another dinosaur, whatever bones lay on top the ground
simply was not preserved by the forces of " nature " in order to weather time so that it's
bones and teeth would fossilize... what was not eaten simply decayed and returned to dust.
the word " fossil " is from a Latin term " fossus " meaning " having been dug up. "
the conditions necessary to fossilize bones and teeth require quick burial and water
sufficient to transport ground minerals into the fabric of the bones over time of the
animal buried.
searching the Internet for locations of fossil finds across the globe we have very
interesting facts posted by Evolutionists that defeat their own philosophy of Evolution.
we therefore have, to their own ignorance, their help in defeating Evolution. Evolution
is easily defeated by the simple fact that everything that is alive is not alive by reason
of the non living elements of which it is comprised.
the philosophy of Evolution steers around this most basic foundation thus exposing itself
as a complete and utter fraud... life, is simply not found in the non living elements of
the Periodic Table.
the Evolutionists, as their ever changing philosophy stands today, states that a minimum
of 10 thousand years or greater is necessary to have gone by to call something a fossil.
that's pretty interesting since the only event in the history of the world sufficient to
meet the requirements of fossilization is a global flood which took place just under 7
thousand years ago... the Flood caused by God commonly called the Flood of Noah.
since the decay of a dead animal laying on top of the ground can not meet the physical
requirements necessary to fossilize its bones immediate burial in sediment is the only
medium suitable to begin the fossilization process. an amount of surface water, as that
of a flood, is required to physically bury a creature in the shortest possible time.
melting glacier's can not meet this requirement... a flood does.
interestingly enough, using today's Mount Everest as a model and not factoring in the
" all the fountains of the great deep burst open " of Gen. 7:11, it rained on the earth
in the Flood of Noah nearly 400 inches an hour... enough to cause massive erosion on such
a scale to bury all creatures not invited on the Ark. but this model is speculation
only... the Evolutionists love to speculate so why can't the elect ?
yet, the water's of the Flood of Noah came from both the ground water of the earth
bursting open as well as heavy rain's thus fulfilling the requirement of quick burial of
the dinosaur's in what became sedimentary rock. the Flood is dated at nearly 7 thousand
years ago by careful study of the " time keeper's " of Holy Scripture and these time
keeper's date the universe as just over 13 thousand year's of age.
knowing that rational mind's do not come to the conclusion that life comes from elements
that are not alive we readily see why the Evolutionists avoid with haste and cursing the
answering of how life did in fact come from nothing alive. their own philosophy is their
undoing and can be summed up by the words of the Living God " this is the condemnation,
that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their
deeds were evil. " Jn. 3:19
Stanley F. Nelson
Then, let us accept, with good will toward all, that we can only guess, with
our very best educated guesses, at how He did it.
Stanley F. Nelson
ACNA.
Patrick
"Stanley F. Nelson" <stan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5rWdneeXjfpFNrbW...@giganews.com...
> Let us stipulate that God created the heavens and the earth.
>
> Then, let us accept, with good will toward all, that we can only guess,
> with our very best educated guesses, at how He did it.
Some of us don't NEED to guess.
We just believe. This is called: "Faith."
Parish *~
"Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
news:DrCdnRmgrL4CVbbW...@posted.localnet...
Why believe blindly? Why not seek answers? The fossil record clearly shows
the dinosaurs died out long before man appeared on the scene.
Patrick
>
> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
> news:DrCdnRmgrL4CVbbW...@posted.localnet...
>>
>> "Stanley F. Nelson" <stan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:5rWdneeXjfpFNrbW...@giganews.com...
>>> Let us stipulate that God created the heavens and the earth.
>>>
>>> Then, let us accept, with good will toward all, that we can only guess,
>>> with our very best educated guesses, at how He did it.
>>
>> Some of us don't NEED to guess.
>> We just believe. This is called: "Faith."
>
> Why believe blindly?
I don't.
There is plenty of proof for me.
There are signs all over.
Just as I have never seen electricity, I see its results.
>Why not seek answers?
I did. I found them. I am content.
But then, I am an optimist.
> The fossil record clearly shows the dinosaurs died out long before man
> appeared on the scene.
Yup.
Parish *~
> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>
>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>> news:DrCdnRmgrL4CVbbW...@posted.localnet...
>>>
>>> "Stanley F. Nelson" <stan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:5rWdneeXjfpFNrbW...@giganews.com...
>>>> Let us stipulate that God created the heavens and the earth.
>>>>
>>>> Then, let us accept, with good will toward all, that we can only guess,
>>>> with our very best educated guesses, at how He did it.
>>>
>>> Some of us don't NEED to guess.
>>> We just believe. This is called: "Faith."
>>
>> Why believe blindly?
>
> I don't.
Really? Then what does this mean? "We just believe. This is called:
"Faith."
> There is plenty of proof for me.
Where? Can you produce some scientific proof?
> There are signs all over.
What signs? Seriously.... where are they?
> Just as I have never seen electricity, I see its results.
You can get a shock from electricity. It can light and heat your home with
it. You can meter it. I see no connection between electricity and
evolution.
>
>
>
>>Why not seek answers?
>
> I did. I found them. I am content.
> But then, I am an optimist.
What is your answer to the fossil record and the poor "design" of humans?
>
>
>
>> The fossil record clearly shows the dinosaurs died out long before man
>> appeared on the scene.
>
> Yup.
>
>
>
--
The Parrish *~, American-American-American.
* * * * * *
"The Mass is the most perfect form of making money."
* * * * * * * *
Patrick
>>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Let us stipulate that God created the heavens and the earth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, let us accept, with good will toward all, that we can only
>>>>> guess, with our very best educated guesses, at how He did it.
>>>>
>>>> Some of us don't NEED to guess.
>>>> We just believe. This is called: "Faith."
>>>
>>> Why believe blindly?
>>
>> I don't.
>
> Really? Then what does this mean? "We just believe. This is called:
> "Faith."
>> There is plenty of proof for me.
>
> Where? Can you produce some scientific proof?
Not enough for you. You are a skeptic. It would be like explaining the
time of day to a pig. Pretty tough cookie.
>> There are signs all over.
>
> What signs? Seriously.... where are they?
Glacier National Park, snowflakes, kindly old gentlemen.....
>> Just as I have never seen electricity, I see its results.
>
> You can get a shock from electricity. It can light and heat your home with
> it. You can meter it. I see no connection between electricity and
> evolution.
There isn't any.
I merely told you: Just as I have never seen electricity, I see its results.
I know what you can do with electricity.
Just as I know that God is nearby.
>>>Why not seek answers?
>>
>> I did. I found them. I am content.
>> But then, I am an optimist.
>
> What is your answer to the fossil record and the poor "design" of humans?
God made the dinasaurs.
God made Adam.
Perhaps not directly.
Perhaps He allowed them to evolve..... after He created the earth.
BTW< humans have done pretty good even if they are badly designed.
Parish *~
> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> wrote ...
>>
>> "Faith."
>>> There is plenty of proof for me.
>>
>> Where? Can you produce some scientific proof?
>
> Not enough for you. You are a skeptic. It would be like explaining the
> time of day to a pig. Pretty tough cookie.
::: Try me. I always look at scientific evidence or proof. Trying to
educate YOU is like tossing pearls before swine as the bible says. You
blindly trample all over truth and knowledge.
>
>
>>> There are signs all over.
>>
>> What signs? Seriously.... where are they?
>
> Glacier National Park, snowflakes, kindly old gentlemen.....
::: What have they to do with the gods and demons?
>
>>> Just as I have never seen electricity, I see its results.
>>
>> You can get a shock from electricity. It can light and heat your home
>> with it. You can meter it. I see no connection between electricity and
>> evolution.
> There isn't any.
::: Then why bring it up?
> I merely told you: Just as I have never seen electricity, I see its
> results.
> I know what you can do with electricity.
> Just as I know that God is nearby.
::: You know this HOW?
>>
>> What is your answer to the fossil record and the poor "design" of humans?
>
> God made the dinasaurs.
> God made Adam.
> Perhaps not directly.
> Perhaps He allowed them to evolve..... after He created the earth.
::: Of course we evolved. No GOD would create such an animal as us. And
yes, we are animals - mammals. There is no need to inject a god/magic into
evolution or abiogenesis.
> BTW< humans have done pretty good even if they are badly designed.
You think the high death rate of mothers in 3rd world Nations is "pretty
good?"
Patrick
>>>
>>> Really? Then what does this mean? "We just believe. This is called:
>>> "Faith."
>>>> There is plenty of proof for me.
>>>
>>> Where? Can you produce some scientific proof?
>>
>
>> Not enough for you. You are a skeptic. It would be like explaining the
>> time of day to a pig. Pretty tough cookie.
>
>
> ::: Try me. I always look at scientific evidence or proof. Trying to
> educate YOU is like tossing pearls before swine as the bible says. You
> blindly trample all over truth and knowledge.
Wow. One of my favorite passages. I would have used
it except I was afraid you might be confused.
>>>> There are signs all over.
>>>
>>> What signs? Seriously.... where are they?
>>
>> Glacier National Park, snowflakes, kindly old gentlemen.....
>
> ::: What have they to do with the gods and demons?
First of all, I don't believe that chance allowed these to exist.
The beauty, kindness, love that exists that makes life wonderful
makes me smile. When you are an optimist, a God believer, you
will see Him in all the good things in life. When you are a
pessimist, a non-believer, you look at everything with suspicion,
wondering what or who is going to make your life miserable today.
You have likely heard that it is impossible to prove that God exists. You
have heard wrong. Not only can the existence of God be proven, denying the
proof undermines rational thought. It is true that God does not need anyone
to prove His existence. The Bible teaches that the existence of God is so
obvious that we are without excuse for denying it.
The first step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether
you actually believe that laws of logic exist. Logical proof would be
irrelevant to someone who denies that laws of logic exist. An example of a
law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance,
that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is
not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way.
The basic operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction,
multiplication, and division. Laws of mathematics then, are basically
descriptions of what happens within these operations (and more complex ones
as well) . For example, with the law of addition we know that if you take 4
things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things.
Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on
repeated observations, and are usually expressed in mathematical equations.
An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of
gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the
ground given all the factors for the equation
I have seldom heard anyone deny that laws of logic, mathematics, or science
exist, but I have often heard people deny the existence of absolute moral
laws. Whereas some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics
describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws 'prescribe'
how humans ought to, or ought not to behave. Rape, and child molestation,
are two examples of absolute moral wrongs.
By now you have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and
absolute morality exist. Next we will examine what you believe about these
laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are
they made of matter, or are they 'abstract' entities? - are they physical or
non-physical things?
You have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute
morality exist and that they are not material. The next question is whether
you believe they are universal or up to the individual. Does 2 + 2 = 4 only
where you are, and only because you say it does, or is this a universal law?
You have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute
morality exist, that they are not material, and that they are universal. The
next question is whether you believe they are changing or unchanging.
To reach this page you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal,
unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist.
Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking
to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted
for if the universe was random or only material in nature.
The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those
who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of
God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are
unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it
declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse
for not believing in Him.
Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness
and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what
may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to
them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his
eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood
from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they
knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but
their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging
laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be
possible. We use rational thinking to prove things. Therefore...
Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove
things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview,
and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order
to prove anything.
In logic, this type of proof is called 'transcendental logic,' or 'the
impossibility of the contrary,' where God is the basis for any rational
thought. Only the Christian worldview can logically support rationality.
What do you believe?
Kenny McCormack
Patrick <bark...@erinot.com> wrote:
...
>I have seldom heard anyone deny that laws of logic, mathematics, or science
>exist, but I have often heard people deny the existence of absolute moral
>laws.
No. This is where it falls apart. There are no absolute moral laws.
Many things that we think of as morally permissible today, including and
most significantly, the extreme form of child abuse known as organized
religion, will be thought barbarous 500 years from now, just as many
things thought perfectly acceptable 500 years ago, are, quite rightly,
thought barbarous today. Including, incidentally, many of the things
you listed as being "obviously" morally wrong.
Face it, Pat, you're barking (get it?) up the wrong tree here.
Smart (relatively speaking, of course) religious people concede that you
can't prove it right, using any reasonable definition of "prove". They
split the difference by claiming that religion and science "occupy
different spheres" or "answer different questions". All attempts to
confuse the two meet with abject failure. Aside: Much as I admire him
and his writings, one has to concede that Descartes's proofs of the
existence of God were BS. One understands, of course, that he had to
write as he did in order to stay alive, thanks to your friends in the
RCC at the time.
...
>The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those
And here's where you really lose it. You can't use the Bible to prove
or show anything, using any reasonable definition of "prove".
Patrick
> > Patrick <bark...@erinot.com> wrote:
> ...
>>I have seldom heard anyone deny that laws of logic, mathematics, or
>>science
>>exist, but I have often heard people deny the existence of absolute moral
>>laws.
>
> No. This is where it falls apart. There are no absolute moral laws.
> Many things that we think of as morally permissible today, including and
> most significantly, the extreme form of child abuse known as organized
> religion, will be thought barbarous 500 years from now, just as many
> things thought perfectly acceptable 500 years ago, are, quite rightly,
> thought barbarous today. Including, incidentally, many of the things
> you listed as being "obviously" morally wrong.
Wrongo, buffalo.... Or jumbo as you like....
Something that is morally wrong today has always been morally wrong.
Something that was morally wrong 500 or 5000 years ago is still
morally wrong. And always will be.
> Face it, Pat, you're barking (get it?) up the wrong tree here.
No, jumbo.
I am not.
Morally wrong things last week will always be morally wrong.
> Smart (relatively speaking, of course) religious people concede that you
> can't prove it right, using any reasonable definition of "prove". They
> split the difference by claiming that religion and science "occupy
> different spheres" or "answer different questions".
I am religiopus, and I don't make that claim.
Why do you attribute things to others when they are wrong?
I suppose because you enjoy being called a liar?
> All attempts to
> confuse the two meet with abject failure. Aside: Much as I admire him
> and his writings, one has to concede that Descartes's proofs of the
> existence of God were BS. One understands, of course, that he had to
> write as he did in order to stay alive, thanks to your friends in the
> RCC at the time.
So now you can also read Descartes' mind.
You must be a very special person (in your own mind).
>>The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those
>
> And here's where you really lose it. You can't use the Bible to prove
> or show anything, using any reasonable definition of "prove".
I can use anything I like.
Just as you and AT&T hate puppies.
Parish *~
> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> wrote ...
>>
>>> time of day to a pig. Pretty tough cookie.
>>
>>
>> ::: Try me. I always look at scientific evidence or proof. Trying to
>> educate YOU is like tossing pearls before swine as the bible says. You
>> blindly trample all over truth and knowledge.
>
> Wow. One of my favorite passages. I would have used
> it except I was afraid you might be confused.
::: That caught you off guard didn't it? :-D Now you're confused.
>>> Glacier National Park, snowflakes, kindly old gentlemen.....
>>
>> ::: What have they to do with the gods and demons?
> First of all, I don't believe that chance allowed these to exist.
::: TRUTH and Science don't care what YOU believe. YOU can believe anything
that you need to believe.
> The beauty, kindness, love that exists that makes life wonderful
> makes me smile.
::: And it exists in all societies including those who never heard of your
particular Bronze Age Hebrew gods and demons. :-)
When you are an optimist, a God believer, you
> will see Him in all the good things in life.
::: And totally ignore him in all the bad things he did and created. It's
called living in a fantasy world.
When you are a
> pessimist, a non-believer, you look at everything with suspicion,
> wondering what or who is going to make your life miserable today.
::: The WTS and some religions teaches that to frighten people like you.
You're 100 negative like all JWs. We have no reason to be miserable knowing
your serial killing mass murdering Hebrew God and bad boy demons don't
exist. You live in utter fear. We do not.
> You have likely heard that it is impossible to prove that God exists. You
> have heard wrong. Not only can the existence of God be proven, denying the
> proof undermines rational thought. It is true that God does not need
> anyone to prove His existence. The Bible teaches that the existence of God
> is so obvious that we are without excuse for denying it.
Where is the proof? What proof is there to deny? The irrefutable
scientific evidence? Where is it? What else would the bible claim? Geeze,
how dense can you be?
>
> The first step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether
> you actually believe that laws of logic exist. Logical proof would be
> irrelevant to someone who denies that laws of logic exist.
::: There is nothing logical about the belief in an invisable killer God who
mass murdered mankind since we crossed the line from ape to man several
million years ago. Where is the logic in it?
An example of a
> law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for
> instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot
> and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same
> way.
::: Which has nothing to do with invisible gods and demons - all 10,000
known gods and who knows how many demons?
>
> The basic operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction,
> multiplication, and division. Laws of mathematics then, are basically
> descriptions of what happens within these operations (and more complex
> ones as well) . For example, with the law of addition we know that if you
> take 4 things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things.
::: Which has nothing to do with invisible mass murdering gods like your
Jehovah, and all those naughty demons.
>
> Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on
> repeated observations, and are usually expressed in mathematical
> equations. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the
> law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will
> fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation
>
> I have seldom heard anyone deny that laws of logic, mathematics, or
> science exist, but I have often heard people deny the existence of
> absolute moral laws.
::: Hummm.......seems like each "god" has his or her own "absolute moral
law." Yes, your god's laws are absolute - stone to death girls who marry
and are found to be non virgins. Force men to marry their deceased
brother's widow even if she hates the man. Stone to death at the garden
gate unruly children and more. (All in your bible) And on and on...... you
should choose another god of the thousands known.
Whereas some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics
> describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws
> 'prescribe' how humans ought to, or ought not to behave. Rape, and child
> molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs.
::: Yet stoning to death young brides because their husbands claimed they
weren't virgins was OK. Stone to death an adulteress but let the man go!
Some laws you have there. BTW, the bible says nothing about child
molestation.
>
> By now you have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and
> absolute morality exist.
::: Don't tell me what I acknowledge. The moral laws of one god are not the
laws of another. Many of your god's moral laws are horrible. Read the OT for
yourself and see.
Next we will examine what you believe about these
> laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are
> they made of matter, or are they 'abstract' entities? - are they physical
> or non-physical things?
>
> You have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and
> absolute morality exist and that they are not material.
::: Please stop the cut and paste and don't tell me what I acknowledge. The
moral laws of one god are not the laws of another. Many of your god's moral
laws are horrible. Read the OT for yourself and see.
The next question is whether
> you believe they are universal or up to the individual. Does 2 + 2 = 4
> only where you are, and only because you say it does, or is this a
> universal law?
>
> You have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and
> absolute morality exist,
::: Please stop the cut and paste and don't tell me what I acknowledge. The
moral laws of one god are not the laws of another. Many of your god's moral
laws are horrible. Read the OT for yourself and see.
that they are not material, and that they are universal. The
> next question is whether you believe they are changing or unchanging.
>
> To reach this page you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal,
> unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality
> exist.
::: Please stop the cut and paste and don't tell me what I acknowledge. The
moral laws of one god are not the laws of another. Many of your god's moral
laws are horrible. Read the OT for yourself and see.
> Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking
> to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted
> for if the universe was random or only material in nature.
>
> The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those
> who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth
> of God's existence.
::: What else would you expect the scribes with agendas to claim? When an
car salesman is trying to sell a car he doesn't point out all the defects,
the problems with the car or he's never sell it.
The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are
> unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it
> declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without
> excuse for not believing in Him.
::: Obvious to WHO? Those with no education in the sciences?
Snip irrelevant proselytizing.
Florence B. Nitengail
> Something that is morally wrong today has always been morally wrong.
> Something that was morally wrong 500 or 5000 years ago is still
> morally wrong. And always will be.
Like the morally disgusting killing of billions on innocent people by your
Bronze Age Hebrew God? Like punishing the children for the "sins" of the
parents? Things like that? Yes, your God would be committed to an "Asylum
for the Violently Criminally Insane" should he show his face on earth.
> Morally wrong things last week will always be morally wrong.
Like your insane and violent God killing 43 little children using a bear
because they teased a bald headed man?
>
> I can use anything I like.
> Just as you and AT&T hate puppies.
And your violent punishing Bronze Age God hates mankind.............
Patrick
> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>> Something that is morally wrong today has always been morally wrong.
>> Something that was morally wrong 500 or 5000 years ago is still
>> morally wrong. And always will be.
>
> Like the morally disgusting killing of billions on innocent people by your
> Bronze Age Hebrew God?
If it is immoral today, it must have been immoral then.
> Like punishing the children for the "sins" of the parents? Things like
> that? Yes, your God would be committed to an "Asylum for the Violently
> Criminally Insane" should he show his face on earth.
If that God were human, I suppose you could, if you want.
I personally think it is pretty tough to punish a God.
>> Morally wrong things last week will always be morally wrong.
>
> Like your insane and violent God killing 43 little children using a bear
> because they teased a bald headed man?
I'm sure you think you have a point.
I don't follow your logic.
Are you like AT&T?
Florence B. Nitengail
> "Florence B. Nitengail" < wrote >
>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>
>>> Something that is morally wrong today has always been morally wrong.
>>> Something that was morally wrong 500 or 5000 years ago is still
>>> morally wrong. And always will be.
>>
>> Like the morally disgusting killing of billions on innocent people by
>> your Bronze Age Hebrew God?
>
> If it is immoral today, it must have been immoral then.
Agreed. Your obsolete Hebrew God is immoral.
>
>
>
>> Like punishing the children for the "sins" of the parents? Things like
>> that? Yes, your God would be committed to an "Asylum for the Violently
>> Criminally Insane" should he show his face on earth.
>
> If that God were human, I suppose you could, if you want.
> I personally think it is pretty tough to punish a God.
Agreed, since they do not exist except in the minds of man.
>
>
>>> Morally wrong things last week will always be morally wrong.
>>
>> Like your insane and violent God killing 43 little children using a bear
>> because they teased a bald headed man?
>
> I'm sure you think you have a point.
I do - and you get the point since you have not tried to defend or make
excuses for your violent mass murdering "God."
> I don't follow your logic.
> Are you like AT&T?
Oh? You don't know what your God did? You never actually read your bible
but claim to be a Christian? How sad..............
Patrick
>>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> Something that is morally wrong today has always been morally wrong.
>>>> Something that was morally wrong 500 or 5000 years ago is still
>>>> morally wrong. And always will be.
>>>
>>> Like the morally disgusting killing of billions on innocent people by
>>> your Bronze Age Hebrew God?
>>
>> If it is immoral today, it must have been immoral then.
>
> Agreed. Your obsolete Hebrew God is immoral.
That isn't what I said.
Do you have a learning disability?
>>> Like punishing the children for the "sins" of the parents? Things like
>>> that? Yes, your God would be committed to an "Asylum for the Violently
>>> Criminally Insane" should he show his face on earth.
>>
>> If that God were human, I suppose you could, if you want.
>> I personally think it is pretty tough to punish a God.
>
> Agreed, since they do not exist except in the minds of man.
I'm glad I'm not you when you face your judgement day.
I would love to hear your reasoning when that occurs......
>>>> Morally wrong things last week will always be morally wrong.
>>>
>>> Like your insane and violent God killing 43 little children using a bear
>>> because they teased a bald headed man?
>>
>> I'm sure you think you have a point.
>
> I do - and you get the point since you have not tried to defend or make
> excuses for your violent mass murdering "God."
Perhaps you could give me a reference to this bald headed guy.
You know, so that we could be on the same page?
>> I don't follow your logic.
>> Are you like AT&T?
>
> Oh? You don't know what your God did? You never actually read your bible
> but claim to be a Christian? How sad..............
I haven't read YOUR bible edition.
Perhaps if you could provide a link, or a reference, I'd
be able to show you the error of your ways.
You do want to know where you lied, don't you?
Florence B. Nitengail
> "Florence B. Nitengail" wrote ...
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. Your obsolete Hebrew God is immoral.
>
> That isn't what I said.
> Do you have a learning disability?
Do you? You must if you don't know what you wrote.
>>
>> Agreed, since they do not exist except in the minds of man.
> I'm glad I'm not you when you face your judgement day.
> I would love to hear your reasoning when that occurs......
Judgment day? That's the same old scare tactic used by almost every
religion and all cults like the WTS. ;-)
>>
>> I do - and you get the point since you have not tried to defend or make
>> excuses for your violent mass murdering "God."
>
> Perhaps you could give me a reference to this bald headed guy.
> You know, so that we could be on the same page?
Judges 3:7-10 ... 82, God sends two bears to kill 42 children for making fun
of Elisha's bald head. As a JW you should know the story already. I learned
it in a Bible (AIDS book) study.
>
>>> I don't follow your logic.
>>> Are you like AT&T?
>>
>> Oh? You don't know what your God did? You never actually read your bible
>> but claim to be a Christian? How sad..............
>
> I haven't read YOUR bible edition.
Geeze and I'm talking about the WTS's version of the bible - the OT. Has the
WTS removed the OT from their latest bible?
> Perhaps if you could provide a link, or a reference, I'd
> be able to show you the error of your ways.
> You do want to know where you lied, don't you?
I have no reason to lie as you do. I have no cult masters to protect as you
do.
Florence B. Nitengail
> "Florence B. Nitengail" wrote ...
>> excuses for your violent mass murdering "God."
>
> Perhaps you could give me a reference to this bald headed guy.
> You know, so that we could be on the same page?
>
2 KINGS 2:23-24 - 42 children made fun of Elisha on the roadside because he
was bald. Elisha cursed them. Two bears came out of the woods and mauled
them to death.
Apparently you know nothing about the bible. All you read are the WTS rags.
Patrick
>> Perhaps you could give me a reference to this bald headed guy.
>> You know, so that we could be on the same page?
>
> Judges 3:7-10 ... 82, God sends two bears to kill 42 children for making
> fun of Elisha's bald head. As a JW you should know the story already. I
> learned it in a Bible (AIDS book) study.
I am not a JW.
Clear out your newsgroups, flowie.
> Geeze and I'm talking about the WTS's version of the bible - the OT. Has
> the WTS removed the OT from their latest bible?
What is WTS?
Patrick
> 2 KINGS 2:23-24 - 42 children made fun of Elisha on the roadside because
> he was bald. Elisha cursed them. Two bears came out of the woods and
> mauled them to death.
> Apparently you know nothing about the bible. All you read are the WTS
> rags.
I am a Christian.... a Catholic.... not a protester.
We don't memorize the Old Testament in order to use the
words as a weapon against others. You may go back to
your room now..... I'm done with you.
Florence B. Nitengail
> "Florence B. Nitengail" wrote
>
>>> Perhaps you could give me a reference to this bald headed guy.
>>> You know, so that we could be on the same page?
>>
>> Judges 3:7-10 ... 82, God sends two bears to kill 42 children for making
>> fun of Elisha's bald head. As a JW you should know the story already. I
>> learned it in a Bible (AIDS book) study.
>
> I am not a JW.
> Clear out your newsgroups, flowie.
They clear themselves out Patty.
Florence B. Nitengail
> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote
>
>> 2 KINGS 2:23-24 - 42 children made fun of Elisha on the roadside because
>> he was bald. Elisha cursed them. Two bears came out of the woods and
>> mauled them to death.
>> Apparently you know nothing about the bible. All you read are the WTS
>> rags.
>
> I am a Christian.... a Catholic.... not a protester.
For a catholic you don't seem to know much about your bible.
> We don't memorize the Old Testament in order to use the
> words as a weapon against others.
Whatever THAT means.
You may go back to
> your room now..... I'm done with you.
Because I have you beat and you can't handle it..............
>
>
Patrick
>>
>>> 2 KINGS 2:23-24 - 42 children made fun of Elisha on the roadside because
>>> he was bald. Elisha cursed them. Two bears came out of the woods and
>>> mauled them to death.
>>> Apparently you know nothing about the bible. All you read are the WTS
>>> rags.
>>
>> I am a Christian.... a Catholic.... not a protester.
>
> For a catholic you don't seem to know much about your bible.
Catholics don't memorize passages in the bible in order
to impress others or use them as a weapon to insult others.
I haven't read KINGS in years.
I don't plan on reading it unless some jerk tells me that some
verse means something that it certainly doesn't mean. KINGS
is not doctrine. It is not dogma. It is history written by some
human, many years ago. It certainly is inspired.
>> We don't memorize the Old Testament in order to use the
>> words as a weapon against others.
>
> Whatever THAT means.
It means that Catholics do not follow your lead in quoting
verses out of context and them making shit up about what they
think they want it to mean, thus... causing debate.
> You may go back to
>> your room now..... I'm done with you.
>
> Because I have you beat and you can't handle it..............
Throw another bible verse at me. Insult me.
Yeah, I can handle it.
Florence B. Nitengail
> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote .
>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>>> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote
>>>
>>>> 2 KINGS 2:23-24 - 42 children made fun of Elisha on the roadside
>>>> because he was bald. Elisha cursed them. Two bears came out of the
>>>> woods and mauled them to death.
>>>> Apparently you know nothing about the bible. All you read are the WTS
>>>> rags.
>>>
>>> I am a Christian.... a Catholic.... not a protester.
>>
>> For a catholic you don't seem to know much about your bible.
> Catholics don't memorize passages in the bible in order
> to impress others or use them as a weapon to insult others.
Nor does anyone else. Disabuse yourself of that RC teaching. We take bible
classes. Didn't you?
> I haven't read KINGS in years.
> I don't plan on reading it unless some jerk tells me that some
> verse means something that it certainly doesn't mean. KINGS
> is not doctrine. It is not dogma. It is history written by some
> human, many years ago. It certainly is inspired.
If it's "inspired" then it came from God - right? Your Pope is not above
God.
>
>>> We don't memorize the Old Testament in order to use the
>>> words as a weapon against others.
>>
>> Whatever THAT means.
> It means that Catholics do not follow your lead in quoting
> verses out of context and them making shit up about what they
> think they want it to mean, thus... causing debate.
There was nothing to take out of context!!! LOL! You have no idea what
you're babbling about. That was the ENTIRE story. You know nothing about the
bible. How can you call yourself a Catholic?
>
>
>> You may go back to
>>> your room now..... I'm done with you.
>>
>> Because I have you beat and you can't handle it..............
>
> Throw another bible verse at me. Insult me.
> Yeah, I can handle it.
Aren't these religious NGs? If you have no interest in scripture then you
are an atheist.
>
>
Patrick
>> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote .
>>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>>>> "Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> 2 KINGS 2:23-24 - 42 children made fun of Elisha on the roadside
>>>>> because he was bald. Elisha cursed them. Two bears came out of the
>>>>> woods and mauled them to death.
>>>>> Apparently you know nothing about the bible. All you read are the WTS
>>>>> rags.
>>>>
>>>> I am a Christian.... a Catholic.... not a protester.
>>>
>>> For a catholic you don't seem to know much about your bible.
>
>> Catholics don't memorize passages in the bible in order
>> to impress others or use them as a weapon to insult others.
>
> Nor does anyone else. Disabuse yourself of that RC teaching. We take
> bible classes. Didn't you?
Obviously you've never stood toe to toe with a Bible
Baptist who spouts bible verses out as weapons to prove they
are the only ones who know what God wants of us.
Bible Classes? I've taught bible classes.... in North carolina.
>> I haven't read KINGS in years.
>> I don't plan on reading it unless some jerk tells me that some
>> verse means something that it certainly doesn't mean. KINGS
>> is not doctrine. It is not dogma. It is history written by some
>> human, many years ago. It certainly is inspired.
>
> If it's "inspired" then it came from God - right? Your Pope is not above
> God.
No one says the pope is above God.
Why do you say it?
As for the Bible.... It is the inspired "word" of God.
It was not written by God.
>>>> We don't memorize the Old Testament in order to use the
>>>> words as a weapon against others.
>>>
>>> Whatever THAT means.
>
>> It means that Catholics do not follow your lead in quoting
>> verses out of context and them making shit up about what they
>> think they want it to mean, thus... causing debate.
>
> There was nothing to take out of context!!! LOL! You have no idea what
> you're babbling about. That was the ENTIRE story. You know nothing about
> the bible. How can you call yourself a Catholic?
Let us go over your entire story......
You claimed:
2 KINGS 2:23-24 - 42 children made fun of Elisha on the roadside because he
was bald. Elisha cursed them. Two bears came out of the woods and mauled
them to death.
Having read the passages from the real bible, I can assuredly say
that the context of your story seems fair.
23 'From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along on the
road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you
baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!"
24 He turned round, looked at them, and called down a curse on them in the
name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two
of the youths.' (2 Kings 2:23-24, NIV).
Here are seven points which will help us to better understand this incident:
1. These were not small children!
Some translations give the impression of little children, but happily, the
NIV which I am quoting here, correctly refers to these youngsters as
'youths.' The Hebrew 'neurim qetannim' is much better rendered as 'youths'
or 'young men.' From several Old Testament examples, we know that these were
probably boys aged from early 'teens' to up to as much as thirty years old!
The KJV is at fault here in using the expression 'little children,' but the
New King James and the NIV both, more correctly, use the word 'youths.' The
Moffatt Bible uses the word 'boys' which seems fair and the Amplified Bible
wisely points out that these were '(maturing and accountable) boys.' As
confirmation of that, a similar Hebrew expression is used to describe Joseph
at the age of seventeen in Genesis 37:2!
2. Elisha was not an old man at this time.
Sometimes the picture is painted of Elisha being an elderly, impatient and
somewhat cantankerous old man who simply (to use a modern expression), 'lost
his rag.' But the truth is that Elisha was not even all that old when this
incident occurred and went on to live over 50 more years !! Some have even
suggested that he was probably not much older than the oldest of these
youths (as already pointed out, these 'youths' could be anything up to 30
years of age).
3. The incident followed an astonishing miracle which the Lord performed
through Elisha at Jericho! In ridiculing Elisha, these youths were actually
ridiculing the Lord!
In verses 22-24 Elisha had just completed the miracle of the healing of the
waters of Jericho, which had been poisoned. It was unacceptable that right
after a mighty miracle had just been performed by God at the hands of Elisha
some local youths should have started taunting and ridiculing him! This was
an open and public insult against Elisha which was probably aimed ultimately
at the Lord Whom Elisha clearly represented. So the taunt had to be dealt
with decisively. The sudden arrival of the two bears who mauled forty-two
youths to death would serve as an eternal reminder and warning that
blasphemy against the true God and his divine plan upon this earth can be
met with swift and serious consequences.
4. This was no harmless "teasing" (as it has sometimes been represented),
but more likely an organised and large demonstration.
If 42 scoffing youths were mauled, how many people were in the crowd to
begin with?? We cannot say but it could have been anything up to 200-500
jeering youths!! If so, this would suggest that the demonstration might have
been purposely organised by the followers of Baal who possibly did not want
those waters healed! Their jeering possibly implied that if Elisha were
truly a great prophet of the Lord, as Elijah had been, he should also 'go
up' into heaven as Elijah had done. Moreover, the expression 'baldhead'
could have been an insulting reference to lepers who had to shave their
heads and were considered the outcasts of society.
5. Elisha did not curse the youths because of hurt pride but because of the
youth's astonishing disrespect for the Lord's servants and the Lord's
actions within human history.
Those unbelievers who think they have found evidence of 'an unfair God' in
this text are only able to interpret it in the perspective of an "elderly"
prophet's hurt pride, but Elisha was obviously a caring and just man (as we
know from other incidents in his life), but he was supremely 'God-centered'
and he knew full well that this very large group of youths only jeered him
as the closest they could get to jeering God Himself. They deserved their
punishment.
6. Elisha - apparently - did not dictate that some of the youths should be
attacked by bears, he merely pronounced judgment on them.
He probably did it in order to strike terror into any other youth gangs
which might have been terrorizing the city, maybe it was a problem in that
area which needed a swift realization to be brought to bear that neither
Yahweh nor any of His anointed prophets were to be threatened or treated
with disdain and contempt. Such dramatic action would certainly teach a
powerful lesson which would not be quickly forgotten.
7. This judgment was a reminder to Israel at large of covenant obligations
and responsibilities.
As others have pointed out, Elisha pronounced a curse which was not
dissimilar to the covenant curse of Leviticus 26:21-22. The result gave
warning of the judgment that would come on the entire nation should it
persist in disobedience and apostasy (see 2 Ch 36:15-16). Thus Elisha's
first acts were indicative of his ministry that would follow: God's covenant
blessings would come to those who looked to him (the healing of the waters:
2 Kings 2:19-22), but God's covenant curses would fall on those who turned
away from him (the slaying of the ridiculers of Elisha and the Lord Whom he
served: 2 Kings 2:23-24).
'"If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will
multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve.
I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your
children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads
will be deserted."' (Leviticus 26: 21-22).
So, in conclusion, this was hardly the particularly nasty atrocity which
Bible scoffers frequently paint it as being and the youths who were mauled
by bears were plainly inexcusable and rebellious God-scoffers who were
hardly 'little children' !
The incident served as a very significant warning for the future religious
allegiances of the Northern Kingdom of Israel who were a significant part of
God's covenant people.
Robin A. Brace, 2007.
>>> You may go back to
>>>> your room now..... I'm done with you.
>>>
>>> Because I have you beat and you can't handle it..............
>>
>> Throw another bible verse at me. Insult me.
>> Yeah, I can handle it.
>
> Aren't these religious NGs? If you have no interest in scripture then you
> are an atheist.
Catholics follow the New testament much closer.
It is the story of the Son of God, the beginning of Christianity, the
fulfillment of the OT, and the Messiah providing guidance to help
us enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Florence B. Nitengail
>>> to impress others or use them as a weapon to insult others.
>>
>> Nor does anyone else. Disabuse yourself of that RC teaching. We take
>> bible classes. Didn't you?
>
> Obviously you've never stood toe to toe with a Bible
> Baptist who spouts bible verses out as weapons to prove they
> are the only ones who know what God wants of us.
Now you attack the Baptists? I have and never had any contact with the
Baptist church. Stop changing the subject. You should know the bible as
other religions know it. You do not.
>
> Bible Classes? I've taught bible classes.... in North carolina.
LOL!!!!!!!!!! How can you teach the bible when you don't know what's in
it? You didn't even know the story of the bald man and the bears and
children.
>>
>> If it's "inspired" then it came from God - right? Your Pope is not above
>> God.
>
> No one says the pope is above God.
> Why do you say it?
Because of what YOU said!!!
> As for the Bible.... It is the inspired "word" of God.
> It was not written by God.
Nor was it written by the corrupt Popes of the past.
>>
>> There was nothing to take out of context!!! LOL! You have no idea what
>> you're babbling about. That was the ENTIRE story. You know nothing about
>> the bible. How can you call yourself a Catholic?
> Let us go over your entire story......
> You claimed:
> 2 KINGS 2:23-24 - 42 children made fun of Elisha on the roadside because
> he
> was bald. Elisha cursed them. Two bears came out of the woods and mauled
> them to death.
> Having read the passages from the real bible, I can assuredly say
> that the context of your story seems fair.
> 23 'From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along on the
> road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you
> baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!"
>
> 24 He turned round, looked at them, and called down a curse on them in the
> name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled
> forty-two of the youths.' (2 Kings 2:23-24, NIV).
>
> Here are seven points which will help us to better understand this
> incident:
>
> 1. These were not small children!
Where does it give their ages or sizes? Youths? How old is a youth? And
who added the word youth? Even if they're 15 yrs old, do they deserve to be
killed by bears for teasing an old man?
>
> Some translations give the impression of little children, but happily, the
> NIV which I am quoting here, correctly refers to these youngsters as
> 'youths.' The Hebrew 'neurim qetannim' is much better rendered as 'youths'
> or 'young men.'
Give it a rest. Young men? Young men wouldn't waste their time teasing an
old man. How these translations CHANGE when it suits the translators.
From several Old Testament examples, we know that these were
> probably boys aged from early 'teens' to up to as much as thirty years
> old!
What examples of adults teasing old men as a young child would?
> The KJV is at fault here in using the expression 'little children,' but
> the New King James and the NIV both, more correctly, use the word
> 'youths.'
How do you know it's "more correctly" without the original texts?
The
> Moffatt Bible uses the word 'boys' which seems fair and the Amplified
> Bible wisely points out that these were '(maturing and accountable) boys.'
> As confirmation of that, a similar Hebrew expression is used to describe
> Joseph at the age of seventeen in Genesis 37:2!
So even if we CHANGE it to mean older boys, and we can't know that.... they
deserved to be killed by bears?
>
>
> 2. Elisha was not an old man at this time.
>
> Sometimes the picture is painted of Elisha being an elderly, impatient and
> somewhat cantankerous old man who simply (to use a modern expression),
> 'lost his rag.' But the truth is that Elisha was not even all that old
> when this incident occurred and went on to live over 50 more years !! Some
> have even suggested that he was probably not much older than the oldest of
> these youths (as already pointed out, these 'youths' could be anything up
> to 30 years of age).
A 30 yr old YOUTH? LOL!!! LOL LOL!!! Any male over 18 is a man, not a
youth. In those days men that age were already married and by 30 many men
were already deceased or the father of many children. Educate yourself on
those times. I have to give you credit for trying to make it sound like it
was OK to slaughter 43 of them for teasing a bald man of any age.
>
>
> 3. The incident followed an astonishing miracle which the Lord performed
> through Elisha at Jericho! In ridiculing Elisha, these youths were
> actually ridiculing the Lord!
Now you're really changing the story to make mass murder seem OK!!!!!!!!
:-D The lord was never mentioned.
>
> In verses 22-24 Elisha had just completed the miracle of the healing of
> the waters of Jericho, which had been poisoned. It was unacceptable that
> right after a mighty miracle had just been performed by God at the hands
> of Elisha some local youths should have started taunting and ridiculing
> him! This was an open and public insult against Elisha which was
> ***probably*** aimed ultimately at the Lord Whom Elisha clearly
> represented.
Probably? Keep going. You get funnier and more desperate with each change
of scripture.
So the taunt had to be dealt
> with decisively. The sudden arrival of the two bears who mauled forty-two
> youths to death would serve as an eternal reminder and warning that
> blasphemy against the true God and his divine plan upon this earth can be
> met with swift and serious consequences.
OK... enough blasphemy from you. You're changing the entire story to make
it seem OK to mass murder "youths" for teasing a bald man.
>
>
> 4. This was no harmless "teasing" (as it has sometimes been represented),
> but ***more likely*** an organised and large demonstration.
More likely? More guessing on your part? Why do you keep trying to make
mass murder seem OK by changing scripture?
>
> If 42 scoffing youths were mauled, how many people were in the crowd to
> begin with?? We cannot say but it could have been anything up to 200-500
> jeering youths!!
More guessing and you expect anyone to take your guesses and assumptions
seriously?
>If so, this would ***suggest ...***
Suggest? More guessing and you expect anyone to take your guesses and
assumptions seriously? The scripture makes clear the "youths" were
slaughtered for TEASING him, not attacking him, beating him, starving him,
pushing him off a cliff.......
The rest of your GUESSES and ASSUMPTIONS deleted as pure blasphemy and
trying to excuse mass murder.
Rob
"Florence B. Nitengail" <no...@nospamforme.net> wrote in message
news:4b3adacc$0$2431$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
Do you believe that 42 healthy young men, whatever the hell their ages,
couldn't escape 2 bears?? No one had a spear?? Or sword?? While 2 or 3 were
being mauled, the others didn't run?? This story is written by lunatics and
only a lunatic would believe it.
Florence B. Nitengail
"Rob" <rob9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b3b4546$0$4939$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> trying to excuse mass murder.
>>
>
>
> Do you believe that 42 healthy young men, whatever the hell their ages,
> couldn't escape 2 bears?? No one had a spear?? Or sword?? While 2 or 3
> were
> being mauled, the others didn't run?? This story is written by lunatics
> and
> only a lunatic would believe it.
>
Of course I don't believe it. It's absurd. :-) But THEY believe it and see
nothing wrong with their God being a mass murder and serial killer. ;-)
Patrick
>> couldn't escape 2 bears?? No one had a spear?? Or sword?? While 2 or 3
>> were being mauled, the others didn't run?? This story is written by
>> lunatics and only a lunatic would believe it.
>>
>
> Of course I don't believe it. It's absurd. :-) But THEY believe it and
> see nothing wrong with their God being a mass murder and serial killer.
> ;-)
Who is "THEY?"
Florence B. Nitengail
THEY are those who believe the ancient Hebrew God Jehovah, the demons and
angels exist with no proof or evidence for their existence. THEY are the
ones who believe it's OK for Gods to butcher, drown, and otherwise murder
innocent human beings - including the unborn and infants.
Patrick
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe that 42 healthy young men, whatever the hell their ages,
>>>> couldn't escape 2 bears?? No one had a spear?? Or sword?? While 2 or 3
>>>> were being mauled, the others didn't run?? This story is written by
>>>> lunatics and only a lunatic would believe it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course I don't believe it. It's absurd. :-) But THEY believe it and
>>> see nothing wrong with their God being a mass murder and serial killer.
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Who is "THEY?"
>
> THEY are those who believe the ancient Hebrew God Jehovah, the demons and
> angels exist with no proof or evidence for their existence. THEY are the
> ones who believe it's OK for Gods to butcher, drown, and otherwise murder
> innocent human beings - including the unborn and infants.
OH... OK.....
You are speaking to non-Catholics then.
nevermind.
I thought you were trying to tell me that Catholics were fundies.
We are NOT.
Florence B. Nitengail
Great! We're making progress if you no longer believe in the God your
church used to believe in. :-)
> I thought you were trying to tell me that Catholics were fundies.
> We are NOT.
Nope.... most are no better than anyone else. Theives. Perverts. Liars.
Patrick
> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>>> THEY are those who believe the ancient Hebrew God Jehovah, the demons
>>> and angels exist with no proof or evidence for their existence. THEY are
>>> the ones who believe it's OK for Gods to butcher, drown, and otherwise
>>> murder innocent human beings - including the unborn and infants.
>>
>> OH... OK.....
>> You are speaking to non-Catholics then.
>> nevermind.
>
> Great! We're making progress if you no longer believe in the God your
> church used to believe in. :-)
I'm still Catholic.