Re: Let your voice be heard on the sanctity of marriage...
Pastor Frank
news:KoqdnclfR9AEyLPV...@comcast.com...
> "punktdawg" <punk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e1e57fc5-4875-414b...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Let your voice be heard on the sanctity of marriage, please vote No on
>> this poll:
>> http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/eveningnews/ktla-primenews-poll,0,4116652.special
>
> Why vote no? Why should you care if two people of the same sex marry, how
> does it affect you? You live your life, let others live theirs.
I think that excuse has already worn thin, by those who justify their
having sex with their consenting adult close same-sex relatives, i.e. mom
and/or dad and among siblings.
It's sad, that 2 people of the same sex can't bunk together anymore,
without one of them running the risk of the other claiming conjugal rights
after 6 months cohabitation and the eligibility to take half of what the
other one owns, ....and getting it in court.
default
> It's sad, that 2 people of the same sex can't bunk together anymore,
>without one of them running the risk of the other claiming conjugal rights
>after 6 months cohabitation and the eligibility to take half of what the
>other one owns, ....and getting it in court.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
Your objection seems moot. Seems to me if heterosexual couples can
enjoy certain privileges before the law, so can heterosexual ones.
Why have marriage for anyone? Why not dispense with the idea of
marriage altogether? After all, what business is it of government to
determine who, how or what?
--
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
default
On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:03:19 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
wrote:
OOPS
>Your objection seems moot. Seems to me if heterosexual couples can
Thom Madura
> "Adonis" <zeroca...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:KoqdnclfR9AEyLPV...@comcast.com...
>> "punktdawg" <punk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:e1e57fc5-4875-414b...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Let your voice be heard on the sanctity of marriage, please vote No on
>>> this poll:
>>> http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/eveningnews/ktla-primenews-poll,0,4116652.special
>>>
>>
>> Why vote no? Why should you care if two people of the same sex marry,
>> how does it affect you? You live your life, let others live theirs.
> I think that excuse has already worn thin, by those who justify their
> having sex with their consenting adult close same-sex relatives, i.e.
> mom and/or dad and among siblings.
Not - incest is not the same thing - make a valid argument why the
government should not recognize the union of ANY two people as marriage
- when it is not a biological concern anyway.
> It's sad, that 2 people of the same sex can't bunk together anymore,
> without one of them running the risk of the other claiming conjugal
> rights after 6 months cohabitation and the eligibility to take half of
> what the other one owns, ....and getting it in court.
So - we should outlaw marriage completely then - for all - is what you
are saying.
none
> "Adonis" <zerocalor...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:KoqdnclfR9AEyLPV...@comcast.com...> "punktdawg" <punktd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:e1e57fc5-4875-414b...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Let your voice be heard on the sanctity of marriage, please vote No on
> >> this poll:
>
> > Why vote no? Why should you care if two people of the same sex marry, how
> > does it affect you? You live your life, let others live theirs.
>
> I think that excuse has already worn thin, by those who justify their
> having sex with their consenting adult close same-sex relatives, i.e. mom
> and/or dad and among siblings.
Who said anything about incest?
> It's sad, that 2 people of the same sex can't bunk together anymore,
> without one of them running the risk of the other claiming conjugal rights
> after 6 months cohabitation and the eligibility to take half of what the
> other one owns, ....and getting it in court.
Your kinda out in left Field on that too.
Pastor Frank
news:1211034767_2544@isp.n...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 23:49:17 -0400, "Adonis" <zeroca...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>>"punktdawg" <punk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:e1e57fc5-4875-414b...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> Let your voice be heard on the sanctity of marriage, please vote No on
>>> this poll:
>>
>>Why vote no? Why should you care if two people of the same sex marry, how
>>does
>>it affect you? You live your life, let others live theirs.
>
> corporate oligarchy would prefer not to extend pensions, health
> insurance, and other benefits to spouses - adding another whole group
> to the corporate (and government) benefactors would not be in the best
> interest of profits.
> The religious sheep are easily swayed and aroused to take up the
> corporate chant. Religion supports injustice and bad politics;
> always has.
> --
That's just a blind hate. Religion in no way "supports injustice and
bad politics". Only Satan's minions lie about their religion in order to
"perpetrate injustice and bad politics".
bob young
Satan is no more real than your many times modified and
re-designed god,
you silly man.
Pastor Frank
news:48303162$0$15164$607e...@cv.net...
Pastor Frank
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:24:07 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>
>> It's sad, that 2 people of the same sex can't bunk together anymore,
>>without one of them running the risk of the other claiming conjugal rights
>>after 6 months cohabitation and the eligibility to take half of what the
>>other one owns, ....and getting it in court.
>
> In for a penny, in for a pound.
> Your objection seems moot. Seems to me if heterosexual couples can
> enjoy certain privileges before the law, so can heterosexual ones.
> Why have marriage for anyone? Why not dispense with the idea of
> marriage altogether? After all, what business is it of government to
> determine who, how or what?
> --
default
Here we go "Satan's minions" indeed! If there was a Satan, his
minions would be wearing robes and preaching from the bible. There
may be a few good people wearing robes and preaching - there's always
hope.
Religion has made men easier to manipulate through the ages and has
always gone hand in hand with political policy. It is all about
control.
Fear is second place to religion as a manipulation tactic although
many religions do use fear to manipulate their "God Fearing," sheeple.
default
On Sun, 18 May 2008 22:05:32 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
<P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>news:1211111390_2589@isp.n...
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:24:07 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
>> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's sad, that 2 people of the same sex can't bunk together anymore,
>>>without one of them running the risk of the other claiming conjugal rights
>>>after 6 months cohabitation and the eligibility to take half of what the
>>>other one owns, ....and getting it in court.
>>
>> In for a penny, in for a pound.
>> Your objection seems moot. Seems to me if heterosexual couples can
>> enjoy certain privileges before the law, so can heterosexual ones.
>> Why have marriage for anyone? Why not dispense with the idea of
>> marriage altogether? After all, what business is it of government to
>> determine who, how or what?
>> --
> The libertine? How droll!!!
Libertine implies no morality. I would not cheat on my wife. I've
never lied to her and wouldn't - that sort of behavior is just plain
disrespectful.
In a "bad marriage" I could see where folks might feel justified in
lying and cheating, but me? I'd just say adios and move on.
Married or not the rules, for me, are the same. I couldn't respect
myself if I rationalize breaking my own rules. No one is going to
give me absolution, there is no forgiveness, I'd have to live with
it.
Pastor Frank
news:48310434...@netvigator.com...
the principle of evil in human form. "You silly a man".
Thom Madura
But you are defining morality.
There is no biological basis for marriage (Not procreation - marriage).
There are virtually no beings in the animal world that take only one
mate and stay with that mate (I admit there are some that so not survive
procreation - and I don't mean this to apply to them). We even have many
examples in the animal world of groups of the same sex sticking together.
No matter whether you believe in evolution or creationism - at the
beginning incest was required to mutliply the species - which means that
faithfulness would have DOOMED the species. It was not cheating - it
was necessary.
Virtually all animals don't know who their "father" was.
bob young
Well put
bob young
Then in that case 'you silly man' all you need to say is
what you just said.
The use of a primitive devil character is totally
superfluous - right?
Another perfect example [as if more were needed]
that religious dogma has been forcibly changed and modified
over the eons
as dictated by scientific discovery.
No more claims of a bearded old guy in the clouds now - we
fly jets 'up thar' now don't we?
Needless to say, if the sky were still out of our scientific
reach that old bearded fella would still be 'up thar'
according to your religionists
Must be really frustrating for you.
"If only the congregation would simply accept what we say as
'gospel' without some of them asking these awkward
questions" How many times has that flashed through your
mind Eh Frank?
Thom Madura
How could your all good god have even though of hell or satan - much
less create them?
monkfish
> How could your all good god have even thought of hell or satan - much
> less create them?
All just in your head.
--
monkfish
* The followup-to header is set to alt.christnet.theology.
** alt.atheism is removed from the groups header.
Pastor Frank
>>
>> Admittedly not the Satan of your definition LOL. But to us Satan
>> means
>> the principle of evil in human form. "You silly a man".
>
> Then in that case 'you silly man' all you need to say is
> what you just said.
> The use of a primitive devil character is totally
> superfluous - right?
>
Satan and devil stir the imagination and make the principle palpable. There
is nothing "primitive" about evil in human form. Your attitude towards this
principle is plenty "primitive" however.
> Another perfect example [as if more were needed]
> that religious dogma has been forcibly changed and modified
> over the eons as dictated by scientific discovery.
>
You keep forgetting to tie in the principle of evil in human form with
"scientific discovery". Is there a connection beyond your overactive
imagination?
> No more claims of a bearded old guy in the clouds now - we
> fly jets 'up thar' now don't we?
> Needless to say, if the sky were still out of our scientific
> reach that old bearded fella would still be 'up thar'
> according to your religionists
> Must be really frustrating for you.
>
No. However it apparently is really frustrating for you. Christ does
not mention any such entity, we don't know what you're referring to.
> "If only the congregation would simply accept what we say as
> 'gospel' without some of them asking these awkward
> questions" How many times has that flashed through your
> mind Eh Frank?
>
These are all images peculiar to your religion / belief or disbelief
system, not to ours.
Thom Madura
I take it then that you welcome people who question your beliefs and
request proof of your claims.
WHy - besides the money?
default
>
>How could your all good god have even though of hell or satan - much
>less create them?
Almighty - not all good.
Pastor Frank
news:S4OdnbsEqICpRanV...@ptd.net...
other? How can God create good, without contrasting good with evil? Atheists
never ask pertinent questions like that, don't they?
Pastor Frank
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:16:43 -0400, Thom Madura
> <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>How could your all good god have even though of hell or satan - much
>>less create them?
>
> Almighty - not all good.
> --
meaning to what is all good.
default
You are playing word games only.
Perhaps it would be easier to think of Good as the absence of evil or
Evil as the absence of good, or just a nebulous gray area - continuous
gradient (I think that's how politicians like to rationalize their
evil)
When trying to justify a deity where none exists, word games are all
you have . . .
monkfish
>
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 05:22:54 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>
>>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>news:1211472544_2907@isp.n...
>>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:16:43 -0400, Thom Madura
>>> <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>How could your all good god have even though of hell or satan - much
>>>>less create them?
>>>
>>> Almighty - not all good.
>>> --
>> "All good" exists only where there is all evil to contrast and give
>>meaning to what is all good.
>
> You are playing word games only.
>
> Perhaps it would be easier to think of Good as the absence of evil or
> Evil as the absence of good, or just a nebulous gray area - continuous
> gradient (I think that's how politicians like to rationalize their
> evil)
>
> When trying to justify a deity where none exists, word games are all
> you have . . .
God is prior to existence.
That means God is necessary for the existence of everything.
If you understand that, you would realize that
your request does not make any sense.
Pastor Frank
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 05:22:54 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>news:1211472544_2907@isp.n...
>>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:16:43 -0400, Thom Madura
>>> <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>How could your all good god have even though of hell or satan - much
>>>>less create them?
>>>
>>> Almighty - not all good.
>>> --
>> "All good" exists only where there is all evil to contrast and give
>>meaning to what is all good.
>
> You are playing word games only.
> Perhaps it would be easier to think of Good as the absence of evil or
> Evil as the absence of good, or just a nebulous gray area - continuous
> gradient (I think that's how politicians like to rationalize their
> evil)
> When trying to justify a deity where none exists, word games are all
> you have . . .
> --
games all yours.
bob young
default wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 05:22:54 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>
> >"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
> >news:1211472544_2907@isp.n...
> >> On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:16:43 -0400, Thom Madura
> >> <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>How could your all good god have even though of hell or satan - much
> >>>less create them?
> >>
> >> Almighty - not all good.
> >> --
> > "All good" exists only where there is all evil to contrast and give
> >meaning to what is all good.
>
> You are playing word games only.
>
> Perhaps it would be easier to think of Good as the absence of evil or
> Evil as the absence of good, or just a nebulous gray area - continuous
> gradient (I think that's how politicians like to rationalize their
> evil)
>
> When trying to justify a deity where none exists, word games are all
> you have . . .
Frank is the expert of experts when it comes to 'word games,
that is until it becomes laughable
and eventually, terribly tiresome - his quotes are lacking
in substance.
He is one of those orators of whom it was well said, 'Before
they get up, they do not know what they are going to say;
when they are speaking they do not know what they are
saying; and when they have sat down they do not know what
they have said.'
[Winston Churchill 1874-1965]
Bob
Humanist Brit.
Hong Kong
bob young
Pastor Frank wrote:
>
> "default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
> news:1211632137_3006@isp.n...
> > On Sat, 24 May 2008 05:22:54 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> > <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
> >>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
> >>news:1211472544_2907@isp.n...
> >>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:16:43 -0400, Thom Madura
> >>> <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>How could your all good god have even though of hell or satan - much
> >>>>less create them?
> >>>
> >>> Almighty - not all good.
> >>> --
> >> "All good" exists only where there is all evil to contrast and give
> >>meaning to what is all good.
> >
> > You are playing word games only.
> > Perhaps it would be easier to think of Good as the absence of evil or
> > Evil as the absence of good, or just a nebulous gray area - continuous
> > gradient (I think that's how politicians like to rationalize their
> > evil)
> > When trying to justify a deity where none exists, word games are all
> > you have . . .
> > --
> You failed to show that good can exist without evil........
........meanignless, pointless 'backs to the wall again', drivel
default
On 24 May 2008 23:03:03 -0500, bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com>
wrote:
But every once in awhile he surprises me and makes me think.
The word game mode serves no purpose - more along the lines of keeping
a discussion going without committing any thought or effort - troll
tactics.
" You failed to show that good can exist without evil. Therefore
the word games all yours. "
Translated: "you failed to return the serve, the balls on your side of
the net - I win, I win!"
Pastor Frank
shown, and that good can exist without evil to contrast it, and vice versa.
Therefore, the philosophical law stands.
Pastor Frank
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>-
>> You failed to show that good can exist without evil........
>
> ........meanignless, pointless 'backs to the wall again', drivel
>
Thom Madura
I have already given examples of good that can exist without evil.
Mother's love for a child at the time of birth.
A couples love for each other at the time of their kiss at a wedding.
The playing of musical compositions
Drinkable water is good.
Grandma's Cruschicki were good.
My first wife's hugs were better than good.
However - if you are trying to prove that god had to be both good and
evil - that is true only when considering the religious definition of god.
Pastor Frank
consider not good, or bad. You just cannot know wet unless you know dry also
etc. etc. All qualities have this parameter. Christ calls upon us to be
good, no matter what, even unto death if need be, and never to sell out to
evil.
default
>Grandma's Cruschicki were good.
Loud ditto there - and she made a great pie crust, probably used lard.
>My first wife's hugs were better than good.
"I'm sorry for your loss" First wife? implies the second to be
wanting . . .
default
>
> You only know those things to be good in comparison with what you
>consider not good, or bad. You just cannot know wet unless you know dry also
>etc. etc. All qualities have this parameter. Christ calls upon us to be
>good, no matter what, even unto death if need be, and never to sell out to
>evil.
Maybe you should cut to the chase with this. Presumably you have an
agenda or point to make and this is a side excursion that supports
your agenda or point?
If you had only good and no evil, you would still have "good," but you
wouldn't have a word for good or evil in your vocabulary.
Happens in isolated tribes - a documented case awhile back - island
nation had no words for lie or truth, since they never lied. The
concept of deliberately telling something that wasn't so, was outside
of their experience so they lacked the vocabulary to describe it.
So yes good may exist (and "good" is a subjective quality - it is
something we add to describe our preferences - doesn't make something
intrinsically good or bad) without evil.
Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound? If you define sound
as the "perceived" high frequency vibrations in air it doesn't. If
sound is defined as vibrations in air it does.
Without knowing where you are headed with this - you're already on
shaky ground - good and evil are subjective. Suns go nova all the
time, it is neither good nor bad. Good if you are an astronomer
studying stars, bad if you live on a planet by such a star -
intrinsically neither good nor bad.
monkfish
Hence, it's all our fault.
Thom Madura
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 20:45:01 -0400, Thom Madura
> <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Grandma's Cruschicki were good.
> Loud ditto there - and she made a great pie crust, probably used lard.
>
>> My first wife's hugs were better than good.
>
> "I'm sorry for your loss" First wife? implies the second to be
> wanting . . .
Unfortunately = I buried both of my wives - and fairly young too.
Do not be sorry though - I had a marriage that every man would dream
about. WE had one fight in 7 years - more like a disagreement. I own the
family farm - and while I do not farm it - I lease it for farming. When
we built our house - she wanted WHITE rugs in the entry and living room.
On a farm - the dust alone would make that imprudent. WE settled on a
white rug in the bedroom - and if in 4 years she still wanted white in
the living room - I would do it. One year later - we replaced the rug in
the bedroom with a darker color.
However - I make the best pie crust =- Grandma's recipe.
If you want the secret - it is cold Vodka. Instead of using cold water -
use half water and half Vodka - you can even let the crust get a little
wetter than normal. The crust will be as tender as you can imagine. (I
use both butter and shortening in mine - she did use lard)
default
On Tue, 27 May 2008 16:15:47 -0400, Thom Madura
<Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>default wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 May 2008 20:45:01 -0400, Thom Madura
>> <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Grandma's Cruschicki were good.
>> Loud ditto there - and she made a great pie crust, probably used lard.
>>
>>> My first wife's hugs were better than good.
>>
>> "I'm sorry for your loss" First wife? implies the second to be
>> wanting . . .
>
>Unfortunately = I buried both of my wives - and fairly young too.
>
>Do not be sorry though - I had a marriage that every man would dream
>about. WE had one fight in 7 years - more like a disagreement. I own the
>family farm - and while I do not farm it - I lease it for farming. When
>we built our house - she wanted WHITE rugs in the entry and living room.
>On a farm - the dust alone would make that imprudent. WE settled on a
>white rug in the bedroom - and if in 4 years she still wanted white in
>the living room - I would do it. One year later - we replaced the rug in
>the bedroom with a darker color.
>
I'm lucky in that respect too. A woman that can stand to live with
me, and still worries that she's hard to live with. 21 years and
counting.
>However - I make the best pie crust =- Grandma's recipe.
>If you want the secret - it is cold Vodka. Instead of using cold water -
>use half water and half Vodka - you can even let the crust get a little
>wetter than normal. The crust will be as tender as you can imagine. (I
>use both butter and shortening in mine - she did use lard)
Hey, thanks for that. My wife is better at deserts, I'll suggest it.
She uses butter too.
Makes sense too. The vodka probably evaporates off very fast and
doesn't swell the flour particles and make them sticky. I remember
using alcohol with xanthan gum - try to mix plain water and it
congeals around the spatula, use alcohol and it stays in suspension
long enough to wet the whole lot down before it thickens.
Pastor Frank
quantifiable. Christ came to to establish the standards for good and evil
His followers are to adhere to. If you prefer other standards, then by all
means elucidate, reference and compare them to those of Christ, so we all
can learn.
Most atheists only trash Christ's standards, but wisely refrain from
advocating any other. This is very thoughtful of them, for it would cause us
to suffer no end of apoplectic laughing fit seizures.
default
On Thu, 29 May 2008 13:15:25 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
<P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
I have no earthly idea how you got that from my writing. What I did
say was the terms good and bad are highly subjective - they are
opinions only. What is good for one person may not be bad for
another.
Cost of oil? Bad for 300 million people in the US good for ~10,000.
Gay marriage? bad for 150 million people, good for 30 millions.
Stem cell research? good for 300 million and bad for a few million
Serial homicide?
Sunlight? Rain?
All subjective - not scientifically quantifiable.
>Christ came to to establish the standards for good and evil
>His followers are to adhere to. If you prefer other standards, then by all
>means elucidate, reference and compare them to those of Christ, so we all
>can learn.
I practice/live what some may call a Christian philosophy. Was there
a person named Christ? Probably. Did he do and say what is
attributed to him? Very questionable. Did he perform miracles?
Highly unlikely. Was he a/the deity? No.
> Most atheists only trash Christ's standards, but wisely refrain from
>advocating any other. This is very thoughtful of them, for it would cause us
>to suffer no end of apoplectic laughing fit seizures.
Christ's standards? Christ said nothing that hadn't already been said
long before him. Philosophers have likely been hashing this sort of
thing out since before historical records - certainly after historical
records.
All the Christ philosophy did was revamp the old testament and update
God's public relations - no smiting, no hissy fits, less temper
tantrums - there is really no way to rationalize the old and new
testaments as being somehow the same basic religion.
We can only wonder - there's been far too many politicians cherry
picking the old historical records.
Thom Madura
That is also not true.
Most atheists recognize the "values" that have been attributed to the
christ PREDATE him. THey are pretty much copies of the Jewish - but even
those are predated by many others.
However - those values - are human values. Atheists do not need the
rubber stamp of a god to determine what is good or bad - and they
recognize that these things were made up by humans to begin with - not
by a christ.
You should realize that all of these things were done by humans - not
gods. Humans have the intelligence and reason to work these out without
divine intervention and threat of eternal punishment. In fact - it is
that threat - that makes the claim of religion ingenuous. People should
do good things because they are the right thing to do and that is what
they want to do - not because they will be eternally punished if they don't.
Adonis
"Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote in message
news:caf99$483ef47d$d1d89a51$26...@PRIMUS.CA...
monkfish
Your "philosophy" appears to be
more anti-Christian than Christian.
Why do you call your anti-Christian view
a Christian philosophy?
You do know what Christ means, don't you?
Do you at least try to love your enemies?
monkfish
The universe is much more mysterious than that.
Pastor Frank
>> quantifiable. Christ came to to establish the standards for good and evil
>> His followers are to adhere to. If you prefer other standards, then by
>> all means elucidate, reference and compare them to those of Christ, so we
>> all can learn.
>> Most atheists only trash Christ's standards, but wisely refrain from
>> advocating any other. This is very thoughtful of them, for it would cause
>> us to suffer no end of apoplectic laughing fit seizures.
>
> That is also not true.
> Most atheists recognize the "values" that have been attributed to the
> christ PREDATE him. THey are pretty much copies of the Jewish - but even
> those are predated by many others.
> However - those values - are human values. Atheists do not need the rubber
> stamp of a god to determine what is good or bad - and they recognize that
> these things were made up by humans to begin with - not by a christ.
> You should realize that all of these things were done by humans - not
> gods. Humans have the intelligence and reason to work these out without
> divine intervention and threat of eternal punishment. In fact - it is that
> threat - that makes the claim of religion ingenuous. People should do good
> things because they are the right thing to do and that is what they want
> to do - not because they will be eternally punished if they don't.
>
atheism? You are way off topic, even relative dolts know, that "the right
thing" is a belief held in faith, not a scientifically proved fact. The
god(s) of your definition don't exist, so be off already.
Pastor Frank
"mere", and "only" etc. liberally, you fail to magnify and glorify,
considering anything "said before|" lacking merit. Christ advocates love and
care being akin to the united field theory in importance to human quality
and the quality of life, and He demonstrated that principle to the death on
the cross of Calvary. All else is commentary.
Pastor Frank
news:KZqdnRYd-4VatKLV...@comcast.com...
consider not open to debate.
default
On Sat, 31 May 2008 15:45:11 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
<P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
You were there and saw it? Do tell.
Can you personally prove that Christ even existed? You do realize
that there is no scientific evidence that such a person really
existed? A few tantalizing snippets that can be construed in a way
that may suggest he did live - but no records from that time, all the
records are much later. Yet there's plenty of evidence that some of
the other bigwigs of Christ' time did exist.
Mere only etc. are descriptive adjectives, and subjective ,much like
good and evil. You are falling back on the old evangelical tactic.
Shift the focus from argument to syntax when losing, or attack the
debater. Works for the mainstream press - watch the "reverend"
Sharpton or Jackson - that is one of their favorites.
default
On Sat, 31 May 2008 16:20:52 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
<P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>pristine Christian groups
A newsgroups with Christians in the title or among the members could
no more be pristine than any other group. And less so than most
monkfish
Don't worry about the messenger for now.
Let's compare the message of Jesus with your message.
You do have a message, don't you?
Pastor Frank
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 15:45:11 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Again you diminish unnecessarily. Like most atheists who use words
>> like
>>"mere", and "only" etc. liberally, you fail to magnify and glorify,
>>considering anything "said before|" lacking merit. Christ advocates love
>>and
>>care being akin to the united field theory in importance to human quality
>>and the quality of life, and He demonstrated that principle to the death
>>on
>>the cross of Calvary. All else is commentary.
>
> You were there and saw it? Do tell.
>
actually landed there, and the Moon landing wasn't faked and merrily an
elaborate propaganda exercise to impress the Soviets? Do tell all!! I
think you are just shock full of beliefs held in nothing but faith, but
won't admit to it.
Pastor Frank
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 16:20:52 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>
>>pristine Christian groups
>
> A newsgroups with Christians in the title or among the members could
> no more be pristine than any other group. And less so than most
> --
believe that all Christian NGs are by nature pristine. Prove us wrong.
Adonis
Apparently you know little of the moon missions by both the United States and
the U.S.S.R.