Your Bible contradicts
Truth Hunter
These are only a few examples of BIBLE ERRORS:
God creates animals and then man - Gen 1:25-26
God creates man and then the animals - Gen 2:18-19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The earth will exist for ever - Ecc 1:4
The earth will be destroyed - 2 Pet 3:10
______________________________
Noah takes 7 pairs of each type of animal onto the ark
- Gen 7:2-3
Noah takes one pair of animal onto the ark - Gen 6:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of wisdom - Proverbs 4:7
The unimportance of wisdom - 1 Cor 1:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The joy of wisdom - Proverbs 3:13-15
The misery of wisdom - Ecc 1:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drinking alcohol is acceptable - Deuteronomy 14:26,
John 2:7-11, 1 Timothy 5:23
Drinking alcohol is not acceptable - Proverbs 20:1,
23:31-34, Hosea 20:1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People choose not to come to Jesus - John 5:40
People can only come to Jesus if God wills it - John
6:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus judges - John 5:22,27, 9:39, 2 Corinthians 5:10
Jesus does not judge - John 8:15, 12:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Satan is free to act as he pleases - Job 1:6-7, 2:1-2,
Zech 3;1, Matt 4:1, 1 Pet 5:8
The angels who rebelled against God are chained up -
Jude 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one born of God sins - 1 John 3:9
Everyone sins - Rom 3:23, 1 John 1:8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who go into the grave will never arise - Job
7:7,9, 14:10,12
Those who go into the grave will arise - John 5:28-29,
11:24, 1 Cor 15:12-18,20-23,52, Rev 20:4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dead are unconscious - Job 14:12, Ecc 9:5, Dan 12:2
The dead are conscious - Mark 9:4, Luke 16:22-23, Rev
6:9-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one has ever seen God - Ex 33:17,20, John 1:18, 1
Tim 6:15-16,
People have seen God - Gen 32:30, Ex 24:9-10, 33:11,21-
23, Isa 6:5, Deut 5:24, Amos 9:1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God is not responsible for confusion - 1 Cor 14:33
God is responsible for confusion - Isa 45:7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gaffo
Vinod Isaac
question I have answered many times and each person claimes that they did
the research. These are question asked by muslims again and again.
Gen 1:25-26 and Gen 2:18-19 are two different context all togather.
Genesis 1 is cronoligical narration and Genesis 2 is descriptive narration
that is the difference.
in Peter it doesn't say "earth will not exists" it simply says that it will
be burned up.
2 Pet 3:10 both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
2 Pet 3:13 says a new earth will there "a new earth in which righteousness
dwells." So the existing earth will burned with fire and will become new.
Again it is 7 of clean animals and 2 each of other animals. Gen 6:19 only
talks about unclean animals. Absolutely no contradiction.
Gen 7:2 "You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male
and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female;
Gen 6:19 "And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of
every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and
female.
"Truth Hunter" <hunter2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c37d5a91.02123...@posting.google.com...
Holden A. Longun
Unit335
Your apologist excuses are complete horseshit. In order of presentation:
>>Vin: "Gen 1:25-26 and Gen 2:18-19 are two different context all togather.
Genesis 1 is cronoligical narration and Genesis 2 is descriptive narration
that is the difference."
Where did this little jewel of wisdom come from? "Chronological" versus
"narrative?" This sort of an explanation in the difference is downright
laughable.
In the context of reading your "narrative," little items like the words
"And." set the context and order. Try reading the material before
regurgitating the nonsense that is spoon-fed to you by your guiding ilk
(read: religious leaders.)
Just in case you are of the "christers-that-never-read-the-Bible" tribe,
here is the passages in question:
From Genesis, Chapter 2:
2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb
of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon
the earth, and there was **not a man to till the ground.**
(Note the **. This passage would also point to man being created before
plants, yet another uh-oh.)
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and **man became a living soul.**
(No man in 2:5, man brought to life in 2:7.)
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the
man whom he had formed.
(Gawd makes Garden of Eden and puts man in it.)
2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is
pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst
of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
(Here is where the plants come in. Note the word "And" that starts this
verse.)
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I
will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and
every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call
them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name
thereof.
Here's where your excuse really falls apart. 2:18 says man should not be
alone, indicating there was no other creatures. 2:19 has that annoying
little word again, "And," specifying that the "beasts" came after man. The
account in Genesis 1, per chronological order: 1) day and night; 2) Heaven;
3) land, seas, vegetation; 4) sun, moon and stars (another atheist laugh);
5) animals THEN man and woman on the same day (Gen 1:27).
I guess when you make shit up for the ignorant, illiterate and gullible, it
isn't necessary to pay attention to such minor details.
You never bothered to dispute the contradiction between Ecclesiastes and
2Peter:
Ecc 1:4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the
earth **abideth for ever.**
You've already agreed that 2Peter says the earth will burn up. Resolve the
inconsistency you managed to overlook. We know it's bullshit, you claim it's
not.
TWO Vs Seven animals: So was it two of "EVERY LIVING THING" (Gen 6:19) or
was it seven pairs of clean and two unclean? And while we're on the subject,
what about the insects and birds? How did Noah keep the birds from eating
the insects and the lions from eating everything? How did he Noah feed them?
This is thousands of species of mammals alone we're speaking of.
Once again, you have failed miserably to address the contradiction. I guess
it can be concluded from your silence on the dozen or so other points made
by Hunter that you actually don't know what the hell you're talking about.
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
"Vinod Isaac" <vi...@jasminecorp.net> wrote in message
news:auqkmo$50m$1...@sun-news.laserlink.net...
Vinod Isaac
foul language.
"And" only sets the context not the order.
"Then sets the context and order"
Read Genesis 1:25-26 it is all arranged by "then" while Gen 2 arranged by
"And".
so Then gives chronolgical narration and "And" gives descriptive narration.
"Unit335" <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tV8Q9.9287$an1.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Rev J Semerko
"Vinod Isaac" <vi...@jasminecorp.net> wrote in message
news:auqkmo$50m$1...@sun-news.laserlink.net...
> question I have answered many times and each person claimes that they did
> the research. These are question asked by muslims again and again.
>
> Gen 1:25-26 and Gen 2:18-19 are two different context all togather.
> Genesis 1 is cronoligical narration and Genesis 2 is descriptive narration
> that is the difference.
Close, Gen 1, is a creation writing, newer then the Gen 2:4 to Gen 4:25
Creation story.
The Gen 2:4 to Gen 4:25 story was adopted by the Hebrews during their time
in Babylon as this story is from the Babylon faith. (Babylon an acient city
to the south of what is now Bagdad Iraq. As in this storey, it marks where
the Garden of "eden" was before God made it vanish. The rivers of this
region are stated in this story.
> in Peter it doesn't say "earth will not exists" it simply says that it
will
> be burned up.
> 2 Pet 3:10 both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
and laid bare. In short destroyed, as ones do in "scorched earth"
> 2 Pet 3:13 says a new earth will there "a new earth in which righteousness
> dwells." So the existing earth will burned with fire and will become new.
>
> Again it is 7 of clean animals and 2 each of other animals. Gen 6:19 only
> talks about unclean animals. Absolutely no contradiction.
> Gen 7:2 "You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male
> and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his
female;
> Gen 6:19 "And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of
> every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male
and
> female.
This is one of the many stories that one's who read and take the Bible
"literally" trip over. Hint don't take it literally, as a person back in
history had a "world" as far as they could see. But it wasn't a "global"
flood as literalists trip over. Take this story for the hidden Wisdom in it,
with its morals.
> "Truth Hunter" <hunter2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c37d5a91.02123...@posting.google.com...
> > I did research years ago and keep it handy on disk Bible contradicts
> > These are only a few examples of BIBLE ERRORS:
> >
> > God creates animals and then man - Gen 1:25-26
> > God creates man and then the animals - Gen 2:18-19
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> >
> > The earth will exist for ever - Ecc 1:4
> > The earth will be destroyed - 2 Pet 3:10
> > ______________________________
> > Noah takes 7 pairs of each type of animal onto the ark
> > - Gen 7:2-3
> > Noah takes one pair of animal onto the ark - Gen 6:19
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> >
> > The importance of wisdom - Proverbs 4:7
> > The unimportance of wisdom - 1 Cor 1:19
True
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > The joy of wisdom - Proverbs 3:13-15
> > The misery of wisdom - Ecc 1:18
True
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> >
> > Drinking alcohol is acceptable - Deuteronomy 14:26,
> > John 2:7-11, 1 Timothy 5:23
> > Drinking alcohol is not acceptable - Proverbs 20:1,
> > 23:31-34, Hosea 20:1
True
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > People choose not to come to Jesus - John 5:40
> > People can only come to Jesus if God wills it - John
> > 6:44
True
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > Jesus judges - John 5:22,27, 9:39, 2 Corinthians 5:10
> > Jesus does not judge - John 8:15, 12:47
True
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> >
> > Satan is free to act as he pleases - Job 1:6-7, 2:1-2,
> > Zech 3;1, Matt 4:1, 1 Pet 5:8
> > The angels who rebelled against God are chained up -
> > Jude 6
True
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> >
> > No one born of God sins - 1 John 3:9
> > Everyone sins - Rom 3:23, 1 John 1:8
True
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> >
> > Those who go into the grave will never arise - Job
> > 7:7,9, 14:10,12
> > Those who go into the grave will arise - John 5:28-29,
> > 11:24, 1 Cor 15:12-18,20-23,52, Rev 20:4
True
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > The dead are unconscious - Job 14:12, Ecc 9:5, Dan 12:2
> > The dead are conscious - Mark 9:4, Luke 16:22-23, Rev
> > 6:9-10
Careful with your wording, remember one's of old thought when a person selp,
that they were dead till the sun rise.
They had very limited knowledge of the universe around them. The writings
are their interpritaions of the events around them.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > No one has ever seen God - Ex 33:17,20, John 1:18, 1
> > Tim 6:15-16,
> > People have seen God - Gen 32:30, Ex 24:9-10, 33:11,21-
> > 23, Isa 6:5, Deut 5:24, Amos 9:1
True
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > God is not responsible for confusion - 1 Cor 14:33
> > God is responsible for confusion - Isa 45:7
True.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
Is this all you have to offer?
When some one reads or takes the writings in a "literal" sense, there are
1,000s more contradictions and errors. The errors and contradictions trap
those who take things out of context. Spiritual experience is something that
science cannot prove nor dis-prove. It is different from one person to
another. Each will experience the Spirituality in their own way. But if that
is all you are trying to do is make the Bible look bad. Then step away from
the Bible, and stay away from Christianity and all the Other Great Faiths of
the World. All belittling the Bible as you tried to do, is show that you
know how to read the Bible in a "Literal" sense.
Rev J Semerko
bwahahahahahaha
1. Joe purchased two apples
2. Two apples were purchased by Joe
My research shows that 1. & 2. are...
"Vinod Isaac" <vi...@jasminecorp.net> wrote in message
news:auqkmo$50m$1...@sun-news.laserlink.net...
Tiger
news:aur237$ego$1...@nobel.pacific.net.sg:
> Looks like hunting for the truth entails untruthful methods. Let's
> see...
>
> 1. Joe purchased two apples
> 2. Two apples were purchased by Joe
>
> My research shows that 1. & 2. are...
>
Irrelevant?
--
Tiger
*Remove yourclothes. to reply via email
John W
exactly this information a hundred times.
And yet I ask you, did you find any of the Bible's Wisdom while you
were searching for errors?
And did you know that many of the "errors" you found aren't errors?
John W
On 30 Dec 2002 14:54:02 -0800, hunter2...@yahoo.com (Truth Hunter)
wrote:
>I did research years ago and keep it handy on disk Bible contradicts
>These are only a few examples of BIBLE ERRORS:
>
>God creates animals and then man - Gen 1:25-26
Genesis 2 is NOT a repeat of Genesis 1
>God creates man and then the animals - Gen 2:18-19
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The earth will exist for ever - Ecc 1:4
Anyone with a basic understanding of the Bible knows that David gave
us his "down side" in this book. So it is true that he said this, but
that doesn't make his statement necessarily true.
>The earth will be destroyed - 2 Pet 3:10
>______________________________
>Noah takes 7 pairs of each type of animal onto the ark
>- Gen 7:2-3
>Noah takes one pair of animal onto the ark - Gen 6:19
Yes, Noah took 7 each of some types, and 2 each of others.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will find what you seek. If you seek God, you will find God; if
you only seek errors, you can find them, too.
In Christ,
John W
In Christ,
John W
------
"You don't break God's laws; they break you!"
Dr. Charlie Shedd
--------------
Ro 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
John W
Satan does that. Who is YOUR master?
John W
In Christ,
Jim Browning
"Unit335" <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tV8Q9.9287$an1.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> <snip>
> I guess when you make shit up for the ignorant, illiterate and gullible,
it
> isn't necessary to pay attention to such minor details.
Tell us, what is your definition of truth? What wisdom have you discovered?
Or can you only criticize?
In Christ,
Jim Browning
Ghostman
> First I will say, "try to control your language". Decent people don't
> speak foul language.
>
Why?
You never hit your thumb with a hammer and shouted SHIT or FUCK? Why not?
Are you afraid of teaching the neighborhood kids something they already
know? Are you afraid of being human?
Vulgarity is a part of life. It can actually be fun sometimes. Skittishly
shying away from it is so.... goody-two-shoes-religious.
Now, repeat after me...
Shit Piss Fuck Cunt Cocksucker Motherfucker... and Tits!
[George Carlin]
Ahhhhhhhh!
--
Ghostman
aa # 2011
EAC Nonexistent Director of Alcohol, Tobacco and Bad Puns
"How can you just obey?"
[Greg Lake, "Infinite Space" - Emerson, Lake & Palmer]
Ghostman
> Do you look for truth, or do you only seek error?
>
> Satan does that. Who is YOUR master?
>
> John W
I am my own master, of course. There are none other.
Why do you think we are controlled by supernatural forces? Why do you
think the human race is nothing better than a box of toys dumped out of
Gawd's toybox on Sunday morning, to be tossed about, stomped upon, then
carelessly thrown back in whilst his mother holds him painfully by the ear?
Devon Hill
Your some Biblical Scholar aren't you........I bet you even read a book by
Spong and believe that that is credible!
From a Mocking and Laughing Devon Hill in Canada.
Proud Darul Harbian
"Unit335" <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tV8Q9.9287$an1.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Ghostman
> Gotta love these liberal idiots that havn't a clue what exegesis
> means.....
>
> Your some Biblical Scholar aren't you........I bet you even read a
> book by Spong and believe that that is credible!
>
Nice retort, you top-posting moron.
Honus
news:Ns7Q9.1562$8n5.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
<snip>
> This is one of the many stories that one's who read and take the Bible
> "literally" trip over. Hint don't take it literally, as a person back in
> history had a "world" as far as they could see. But it wasn't a "global"
> flood as literalists trip over.
Yeah, right. That's why Noah had to build an ark, and load it up with males
and females of each kind -as God directed-. There weren't anymore camels
just over the hill to reestablish the population. There weren't any more
rabbits just over the hill, weren't any more birds, weren't anymore
anything.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
--
Remove the backwards NOSPAM in the email address to reply to my personal
mailbox.
Visit http://home.earthlink.net/~honus1/
A collection of so-called religious miracles
including (but not limited to) Jesus in burnt
tortillas, the Virgin Mary in the barks of trees,
and the name Allah in various vegetables.
All with appropriate (or inappropriate) commentary.
Unit335
don't speak foul language."
Spoken like the truly self-righteous. A mere arrangement of consonants and
vowels, and you get your panties into a knot. "Don't use any poopie words. I
have a delicate condition. And it makes you not decent."
Please....spare me. (sarcastic squint to one eye.) Please indulge in a brief
exercise of mono-intercoursal-gratification.
That said, I gave several verses within both chapters of Genesis to support
what I said. But since you got tickets to the cheap seats, I'll draw you a
picture:
Gen 1:
1) day and night; 1:4-5
2) Heaven & Earth; 1:6-8
3) land, seas, vegetation; 1:9-11
4) sun, moon and stars (another atheist laugh); 1:14-16
5) animals (1:20)
6) THEN man and woman at the same time. (Gen 1:27).
Gen 2:
1) Recap; 2:1-4
2) No plants -2:5 "And every plant of the field BEFORE it was in the earth,
and every herb of the field BEFORE it grew:"
3) No man - 2:5 "...and there was not a man to till the ground."
4) man created, 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
soul."
5) Plants created; 2:9 "And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow
every tree that..."
6) man should not be alone; 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that
the man should be alone;"
7) animals created; 2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every
beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to
see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living
creature, that was the name thereof."
8) man has no mate; 2:20 "..but for Adam there was not found an help meet
for him."
9) Adam couch crashes; 2:21 "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall
upon Adam,"
10) Woman is made: 2:22 "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man,
made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."
What's the next excuse? "Devine Artistic License?" Was the writer of the
second chapter just more creative?
Just for the record: I personally did not "research" this. I was told what
the information was and where to look for it. I opened a Bible and "voila!",
there it was.
-Donald in Austin
P.S. There's still 10 or 12 more contradictions you didn't address. Will the
Earth die or live forever? (2Peter vs Ecc.)
"Vinod Isaac" <vi...@jasminecorp.net> wrote in message
news:aur0fu$db0$1...@sun-news.laserlink.net...
Unit335
"poly" <pp...@nomete.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92F4E39B...@198.80.55.250...
> Ghostman <ghos...@ghost.com> wrote in
> news:Xns92F4E2...@127.0.0.1:
bryan vegh
"Ghostman" <ghos...@ghost.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92F4E2...@127.0.0.1...
> Vulgarity is a part of life.
> It can actually be fun sometimes.
I think why religious people find it offensive is because
a) they are unaccustomed to hearing it, b) because it's usually followed up
by equally loud and dangerous hurling of solid objects, c) in some cases
it involves being soundly thrashed as well, d) it typically involves pain,
anger and/or
hatred, e) it tends to inspire/reciprocate/extract similar feelings of
hostility in the
person who is trying to be peaceable and conscientious, f) it does not
inspire
critical thinking just criticism, g) it's usually wasted energy, serving no
purpose
other than emotional release, and h) it's distracting. ; ) The only time
my mom
uttered profanity was when she was REALLY mad. The events which followed
the profanity were often unpleasant. Therefore, when my husband (I'm
female)
utters profanity, my skin starts to crawl. In fact, when anyone starts
hurling obscenities,
I get nervous. lol
>Skittishly
> shying away from it is so.... goody-two-shoes-religious.
>
> Now, repeat after me...
>
> Shit Piss Fuck Cunt Cocksucker Motherfucker... and Tits!
> [George Carlin]
George Carlin is funny. I could do without the color expletives, or as
Spock called them,
"colorful metaphors," but the guy is funny.
Unit335
Did you somehow mistake your post for some sort of intelligence? It was
completely non-sequitur.
I'm not a liberal, never claimed to be a Biblical scholar, and exegesis
doesn't apply here. In one chapter, there is vegetation when man is created.
In the next, there is man but no plants.
No, I haven't read any of Spong's books, though I have a respect of sorts
for him. I don't see where your interjection has any bearing.
Ultimately, it is a moot point. The entire Gawd concept is but a fairy tale.
Care to try again?
-Donald in Austin
"Devon Hill" <dsb...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:FcbQ9.199957$Qr.53...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
John Smith
"Tiger" <j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92F4E34593...@24.25.0.82...
Unit335
Cult document known as The Bible. The Bible is nothing more than a fairy
tale. And a bad one at that.
I don't believe in your Boogey man, either. I do not need fear of
"what-goes-bump-in-the-night" to conduct myself in a decent manner. I do it
because I am a decent person.
"There are none so ignorant than those that seek the truth on their knees,
with their eyes closed."
-Donald in Austin
"John W" <john_Wea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e5821vcauq38dlmeo...@4ax.com...
Unit335
I see that you didn't add much to the conversation. Nevertheless, I'll amuse
myself while killing a bit of time.
Truth? Wading through a complete mound of bovine feces to find one jewel of
verifiable information.
Wisdom? Hmmm...
Belly-button lint filters are no match for the good manual dexterity of one
finger?
I can do much more than just criticize. This topic doesn't allow room for
it, though.
-In Austin (better than any concept of heaven, and a real place)
Donald
"Jim Browning" <rev...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:%x9Q9.21159$p_6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Tiger
"Unit335" <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> Devon:
>
> Did you somehow mistake your post for some sort of intelligence? It
> was completely non-sequitur.
>
A. "Non-sequitur" is a noun, not an adjective.
2. Snipping is a good thing.
III. Top-posting is for Jeopardy contestants.
Tiger
"John Smith" <m...@me.com> wrote:
> "Tiger" <j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92F4E34593...@24.25.0.82...
> > "bwahahahahahaha" <crock_o_shit@my_ass.com> wrote in
> > news:aur237$ego$1...@nobel.pacific.net.sg:
> >
> > > Looks like hunting for the truth entails untruthful methods. Let's
> > > see...
> > >
> > > 1. Joe purchased two apples
> > > 2. Two apples were purchased by Joe
> > >
> > > My research shows that 1. & 2. are...
> > >
> > Irrelevant?
> >
> Care to explain why?
I fixed your top-posting problem.
Why it's irrelevant? I believe it was in reference to contradictory
Genesis accounts, no? Since it's been awhile, and I've read hundreds of
messages since then, I'm not sure anymore.
walks...@dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.inc
>Great study, thanks. Yet I doubt your source being YOU. I've seen
>exactly this information a hundred times.
And yet you spout similar garbage and expect everyone to believe you
are the source? Or are you above reproach? Actually are you just
thinking you or above reproach.
>And yet I ask you, did you find any of the Bible's Wisdom while you
>were searching for errors?
There is some of course, but there is wisdom in the book Moby Dick
as well. Wisdom is not confined to one source only in spite of your
fears.
>And did you know that many of the "errors" you found aren't errors?
Of course they are logged errors to you John, for you are too
fearful of that being so to except that they are. But they are Perce
in that they are not in agreement with each other, a thing one would
expect an all powerful fart in the wind to avoid if it really had a
message to get out to Humanity.
>John W
>On 30 Dec 2002 14:54:02 -0800, hunter2...@yahoo.com (Truth
>Hunter) wrote:
>>I did research years ago and keep it handy on disk Bible contradicts
>>These are only a few examples of BIBLE ERRORS:
>>
>>God creates animals and then man - Gen 1:25-26
>Genesis 2 is NOT a repeat of Genesis 1
Of course they are different books John, but they attempt to build
on the same myth and as a consequence to a very bad job of it. If
you actually read the boring thing you notice that book one appears
to be recordings of tribal tradition and oral history. It tries to
link the tribes to a particular pair of gods. Initially, the claim
is for one god only but there are many gods in Cannan, they just
tried to take the most powerful one and change its habits and
manners to fit them.
>>God creates man and then the animals - Gen 2:18-19
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>The earth will exist for ever - Ecc 1:4
>Anyone with a basic understanding of the Bible knows that David
>gave us his "down side" in this book. So it is true that he said
>this, but that doesn't make his statement necessarily true.
Anyone with a basic understanding of the xian bible, for theirs is
not the only one even engineers have a bible, understands that it is
based on a myth designed to link a particular nomadic tied with a
particular god. It is really not that complicated for most people.
The information is there in that particular book if a person can't
comprehend basic history in tribal dynamics. Or are you one of those
that can not take a leak without giving their feet wet unless Yaweh
is holding your hand?
>>The earth will be destroyed - 2 Pet 3:10
>>______________________________
>>Noah takes 7 pairs of each type of animal onto the ark
>>- Gen 7:2-3
>>Noah takes one pair of animal onto the ark - Gen 6:19
>Yes, Noah took 7 each of some types, and 2 each of others.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You will find what you seek. If you seek God, you will find God; if
>you only seek errors, you can find them, too.
Which god John, the world is literally crawling with them. That you
are so afraid to try to find the right one is your shortcoming. In a
way that is extremely said for there are some good gods claimed by
Humanity, and some like yours that are evil. Even El was a good god
at one time before the ancient Ap'aru god a hold of him so you can
see that stolen goods tend to lose any value whatsoever. Xianity the
religion based on the god of the golden calf whose son took his
place for El was called the father of the gods.
John's standard threat removed with relish.
Walksalone who tends to doubt that John even really understands what
it is he claims. But then, all I have to base that on is heroes
scribings such as they are.
Karl E. Taylor
>
> TWO Vs Seven animals: So was it two of "EVERY LIVING THING" (Gen 6:19) or
> was it seven pairs of clean and two unclean? And while we're on the subject,
> what about the insects and birds? How did Noah keep the birds from eating
> the insects and the lions from eating everything? How did he Noah feed them?
> This is thousands of species of mammals alone we're speaking of.
>
>
>
> Once again, you have failed miserably to address the contradiction. I guess
> it can be concluded from your silence on the dozen or so other points made
> by Hunter that you actually don't know what the hell you're talking about.
>
clean aspect.
How did Noah know which animals were "clean" and which were not? The
law regarding clean and unclean animals would not be given by the sky
daddy till Moses. Yet, here is a man and his family, supposedly,
hundreds of years before Moses, dividing up clean and unclean animals.
If this god creature gave the law of clean / unclean to Noah, then why
did it have to give it again to Moses? If, as is suggested in the
story, it did not give the law to Noah, then how did Noah know which
animal was clean, and which was not?
Of course, being that it is mythology does make it very easy to pick
apart the errors. It's not supposed to be a literal story, but an
allegory. A moralistic tale with an outcome designed to invoke a reader
to ponder.
Those who would take mythology as fact, fail to recognize the function
of fables.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@qwest.net
A.A #1143 ULC Minister
Home School Educator for Computer Science
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
John W
>One fine day in alt.atheism, John W fired a few neurons and wrote
>
>> Do you look for truth, or do you only seek error?
>>
>> Satan does that. Who is YOUR master?
>>
>> John W
>
>I am my own master, of course. There are none other.
>
>Why do you think we are controlled by supernatural forces? Why do you
>think the human race is nothing better than a box of toys dumped out of
>Gawd's toybox on Sunday morning, to be tossed about, stomped upon, then
>carelessly thrown back in whilst his mother holds him painfully by the ear?
Sorry that has been your experience with "religion". The fact is, you
are describing enslavement to Satan, whom you now serve, rather than
the God of the Bible whom you have never met.
The God of the Bible is not the One whom you describe. You are
inventing behavior that appears no where in scripture.
Now WHO would want to lie about God? You are Satan!
In Christ,
John W
John W
<donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>I constantly look for the truth, none of which have I found in the Blood
>Cult document known as The Bible.
I'm SO glad you said that. Your foolishness ABOUNDS!
The Bible is the first ancient document that correctly stated that the
earth is round.
The Bible is nothing more than a fairy tale. And a bad one at that.
I can't believe you've read it all through 5 times (it takes that many
to begin to get a grasp on what's there), and you havn't found REAL
WISDOM in Psalms and Proverbs. The book Song of Solomon is a VERY
erotic, well written pillow book.
>
>I don't believe in your Boogey man, either. I do not need fear of
>"what-goes-bump-in-the-night" to conduct myself in a decent manner. I do it
>because I am a decent person.
The way you talk about God and the Bible, you're not a decent man. I
don't see or hear you calling Mohammed or Allah boogiemen.
You don't honor the Christian/Jewish God, and you show nothing but
contempt for we who do. You are NOT a decent man.
You probably also use the "n" word when you think no one's listening,
and I BET you openly persecute Christians without even thinking about
it!
And you're such a scum bag, you'd probably say "big deal!" if I told
you how you persecute Christians!
>
>"There are none so ignorant than those that seek the truth on their knees,
>with their eyes closed."
You just can't stand humility! There isn't one single, solitary humble
hair on your head! And if you are so miserable around Christians, how
come cross post to Christian groups that could care LESS what you
believe?
In Christ,
John W
John W
making NO EFFORT to understand; but you don't understand! Hmmmmm...
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:22:33 GMT, "Unit335"
<donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>John W:
>
>
>
>I see that you didn't add much to the conversation. Nevertheless, I'll amuse
>myself while killing a bit of time.
>
>
>
>Truth? Wading through a complete mound of bovine feces to find one jewel of
>verifiable information.
Verifiable? Such as, the Bible is the earliest work that mentions that
the earth is round.
Would that qualify? Have you found greater wisdom than Psalms or
Proverbs? Have you found a more erotic pillow book than Song of
Solomon.
You aren't coming in here with any truth. You are in here with your
disease, hating God, hating Christ, and hating the Bible. None of
these is based on fact; all are based on the diseased philosophy of
atheism, the "I am God" foolishness. "Besides me, there is none."
Good luck with that, ok?
>
>
>Wisdom? Hmmm...
>
>
>
>Belly-button lint filters are no match for the good manual dexterity of one
>finger?
>
How's about the Bible being the first ancient work that mentions that
the earth is round? The book written when the prevailing "science"
said that the earth was flat.
>
>
>I can do much more than just criticize. This topic doesn't allow room for
>it, though.
>
Your tiny anti-God brain, if you had one, leaves NO room for
education.
>
>
>-In Austin (better than any concept of heaven,
You don't know my concept of heaven, so AGAIN, you FOOLISHLY speak for
yourself, me, and the rest of the world. Don't.
and a real place)
That atheism disease will screw you up! Watch it! Too late!
In Christ,
John W
>
>Donald
>
>
>
>
>"Jim Browning" <rev...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:%x9Q9.21159$p_6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> "Unit335" <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:tV8Q9.9287$an1.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>>
>> > <snip>
>> > I guess when you make shit up for the ignorant, illiterate and gullible,
>> it
>> > isn't necessary to pay attention to such minor details.
>>
>> Tell us, what is your definition of truth? What wisdom have you
>discovered?
>> Or can you only criticize?
>>
>> In Christ,
>> Jim Browning
>>
>>
>
In Christ,
John W
John W
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 07:10:32 GMT, Ghostman <ghos...@ghost.com> wrote:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, Devon Hill fired a few neurons and wrote
>
>> Gotta love these liberal idiots that havn't a clue what exegesis
>> means.....
>>
>> Your some Biblical Scholar aren't you........I bet you even read a
>> book by Spong and believe that that is credible!
>>
>
>Nice retort, you top-posting moron.
In Christ,
John W
rather than comments throughout.
There are a number of us who find that way more logical. Get used to
it.
Or, don't read our posts.
John W
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:47:23 GMT, Tiger <j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:06:29 GMT
>"Unit335" <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Devon:
>>
>> Did you somehow mistake your post for some sort of intelligence? It
>> was completely non-sequitur.
>>
>A. "Non-sequitur" is a noun, not an adjective.
>2. Snipping is a good thing.
>III. Top-posting is for Jeopardy contestants.
In Christ,
John W
Those who would reduce the entire Bible to allegories and mythologies
fail to recognize and appreciate the power of the Bible.
And how do you know they were fables? Were you there to make note that
the author of the book didn't get it quite right?
You call "OBVIOUS FABLES" those parts you don't wish to believe. And
the part about sinful mankind needing to be redeemed REALLY sticks in
your craw, doesn't it?
Yet time and miracles that continue and prophesy that continues to be
fulfilled prove to we, the open minded, that we are correct.
Prophesy continues to be fulfilled in our lifetimes. Miracles still
happen. Praise God! Don't bother the atheists! Their heads are so far
up their butts they can't see daylight, attempting to hide from God.
Did you know the Bible says the earth is round? And that was written
back when "scientists" believed the earth was FLAT!
John W
John W
<donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>Devon:
>
>Did you somehow mistake your post for some sort of intelligence? It was
>completely non-sequitur.
>
>I'm not a liberal, never claimed to be a Biblical scholar, and exegesis
>doesn't apply here. In one chapter, there is vegetation when man is created.
>In the next, there is man but no plants.
>
>No, I haven't read any of Spong's books, though I have a respect of sorts
>for him. I don't see where your interjection has any bearing.
>
>Ultimately, it is a moot point. The entire Gawd concept is but a fairy tale.
Actually, YOU are the fairy tale! God continues to exist.
one proof: try finding the verse that says the earth is round. It's in
the Old Testament.
In Christ,
John W
In Christ,
John W
John W
In Christ,
John W
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 05:13:49 -0500,
walks...@dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.inc. wrote:
>In <ao721v4urhp3pdo77...@4ax.com>, on 12/30/2002
> at 08:41 PM, John W <john_Wea...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>>Great study, thanks. Yet I doubt your source being YOU. I've seen
>>exactly this information a hundred times.
>
>And yet you spout similar garbage and expect everyone to believe you
>are the source?
I don't spout garbage in the perspective of anyone other than walks,
and I can live with that. Walks continues to be ignorant that he's in
the Baptist group, attacking baptists. Duh!
My being the source is ridiculous! Childish name calling! I FREQUENTLY
say I got this from someone; yet walks is apparently unable to believe
that I am capable of independent study. Any properly educated
Christian is capable of independent exegesis and systematic
theologies.
Or are you above reproach? Actually are you just thinking you or
above reproach.
Don't remember ever saying I could not be corrected. Certainly not by
someone who rejects the entire Bible and any belief in Deity. Duh!
>
>>And yet I ask you, did you find any of the Bible's Wisdom while you
>>were searching for errors?
>
>There is some of course, but there is wisdom in the book Moby Dick
>as well. Wisdom is not confined to one source only in spite of your
>fears.
Walks can't stay on the subject. He is now comparing a novel to a
book of wisdom. There is history, there is science ( the Bible says
the earth is round ), and yes, there's a relationship with God. Walks
wants none of the above, so he lies like the pathological liar he is,
trying to dissuade the faithful. The Old Testament teaches the life is
in the blood, and the order of creation matches the order of
evolution; we merely argue about the time it took.
>>And did you know that many of the "errors" you found aren't errors?
>
>Of course they are logged errors to you John, for you are too
>fearful of that being so to except that they are.
I mean we scholars have gone through the Bible and researched all
those "problem texts" and many aren't problem texts.
See, the scoffers tend to stop when they believe they've found a
problem. The scholar says, "that can't be right", and he studies until
he has solved the problem. YEs, there are problems with the Bible; its
authors were partly human.
But they are Perce in that they are not in agreement with each other,
a thing one would expect an all powerful fart in the wind to avoid if
it really had a message to get out to Humanity.
And you are too stupid to even understand that if Deity does exist, it
does YOU no good whatever to insult Him! I'd say you have stones; I
think it's more accurate to say your head is a cinder block!
In Christ,
John W
In Christ,
Karl E. Taylor
How did Noah know which animals where clean, and which were not?
walks...@dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.inc
at 04:52 AM, John W <john_Wea...@yahoo.com> said:
Actually, top posting is for those lazy bastards that can not manage
to think about others and be conciderate. That they do not like to
have this pointed out is really moot and beside the point for the
very rarely have anything worthy of notice. A case in point would be
your dribblings with regularity making grandiose claims and refusing
to provide any useful information.
>Top posting is for short notes on the gist of the whole article,
>rather than comments throughout.
>There are a number of us who find that way more logical. Get used
>to it.
There are many of you that are inconsiderate of other people but
that does not make it right. Of course you are so special that it
does not matter and others should give in to your whim but they
don't. Your method of posting is really nothing but a child in a
hurry that wants to prove it has nothing to say.
>Or, don't read our posts.
In other words you are too important to even think about Being like
others and being self musing standards set up by many people over
the years. Horse shit John you are but a pretty tyrant that claims
to have knowledge that you obviously do not have nor do you have the
importance here that you appear to think you have.
Snip priors His mad assty doesn't care to respnd to people in a
civil manner, so I treat him the same way.
walksalone who really wonders if John thinks he is a theologan, or
if he even thinks that all.
Jacobugath
>
The Gospel of Jesus Christ was not new and original with Christ himself. It
existed from Adam. The laws concerning clean and unclean beasts may not have
originated with Moses. Church history is the history of how the Gospel was
given to mankind and then lost and restored and lost and restored.
--
Learn more about Jesus at
www.lds.org/
www.mormons.org/
Jake
Tiger
news:aohQ9.573812$QZ.81923@sccrnsc02:
Only in the demented mind of a hat-peeker.
VernonOJ
"bryan vegh" <bv...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jccQ9.179913$Db4.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Ghostman" <ghos...@ghost.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92F4E2...@127.0.0.1...
>
>
> > Vulgarity is a part of life.
> > It can actually be fun sometimes.
>
> I think why religious people find it offensive is because
Only idiots or those out of control run out of descriptive words.
Without intelligence the sounds uttered are just that, sounds, like diarrhea
of the brain.
monarchy
John W wrote:
>
>Did you know the Bible says the earth is round? And that was written
>back when "scientists" believed the earth was FLAT!
>
Big Deal, The bible also says that bats are birds.
Lev. 11:13-19
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the
fowls ; they shall not be eaten,
they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the
kite after his kind; 15 Every raven after his kind; 16 And the owl, and
the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 17 And the
little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18 And the swan, and
the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19 And the stork, the heron after her
kind, and the lapwing, and THE BAT.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
>
>
Falcon
wrote:
Hat-peeker?
Ciao,
Falcon
--
###################################################################
############ To reply via email remove "7" from address ###########
###################################################################
# BIBLE: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth #
# "Have You Read My #1 Best Seller? There Will Be A Test." - God #
###################################################################
Tiger
news:3je31vkbl4t74fc3l...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:43:33 GMT, Tiger <j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Jacobugath" <jacob...@insightbb.com> wrote in
>>news:aohQ9.573812$QZ.81923@sccrnsc02:
>>
>>>> I notice that you do not address the point made.
>>>>
>>>> How did Noah know which animals were clean, and which were not?
>>>
>>> The Gospel of Jesus Christ was not new and original with Christ
>>> himself. It existed from Adam. The laws concerning clean and
>>> unclean beasts may not have originated with Moses. Church history
>>> is the history of how the Gospel was given to mankind and then
>>> lost and restored and lost and restored. --
>>> Learn more about Jesus at www.lds.org/ www.mormons.org/
>>>
>>Only in the demented mind of a hat-peeker.
>
> Hat-peeker?
>
Joseph Smith was a "treasure-finder." He hired himself out to find
treasure for people. He did this by putting stones in his hat and
placing his face over the hole. He had people convinced he could find
treasure that way. It was supposedly on such an excursion to dig up
some treasure that he found the golden tablets.
He was also sued and convicted of fraud on at least 3 occasions. The
court records in Palmyra, NY still exist.
Falcon
wrote:
>Falcon <falco...@attbi.com> wrote in
>news:3je31vkbl4t74fc3l...@4ax.com:
>>>Only in the demented mind of a hat-peeker.
>>
>> Hat-peeker?
>>
>Joseph Smith was a "treasure-finder." He hired himself out to find
>treasure for people. He did this by putting stones in his hat and
>placing his face over the hole. He had people convinced he could find
>treasure that way. It was supposedly on such an excursion to dig up
>some treasure that he found the golden tablets.
>
>He was also sued and convicted of fraud on at least 3 occasions. The
>court records in Palmyra, NY still exist.
Interesting. I found a pretty good link about one aspect of this
hat-peeking if you are interested. Other links talk about the buried
treasure scam this one is specific to "translating" the gold plates.
http://www.mrm.org/articles/seer-stone.html
Scott
> Devon:
>
> Did you somehow mistake your post for some sort of intelligence? It was
> completely non-sequitur.
>
> I'm not a liberal,
snipped
> -Donald in Austin
Your not a liberal and you live in Austin! You belong at A&M
Ghostman
So you think religious morality is intelligence?
--
Ghostman
aa # 2011
EAC Nonexistent Director of Alcohol, Tobacco and Bad Puns
"How can you just obey?"
[Greg Lake, "Infinite Space" - Emerson, Lake & Palmer]
Scott
> These are only a few examples of BIBLE ERRORS:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
F. Fundamentalist Interpretation
Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible,
being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and
interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it
understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which
excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its
historical origins and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of
the historical-critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific
method for the interpretation of Scripture.
The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the
Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of
Scripture. After the century of the Enlightenment it emerged in
Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis.
The actual term <fundamentalist> is connected directly with the American
Biblical Congress held at Niagara, N.Y., in 1895. At this meeting,
conservative Protestant exegetes defined "five points of fundamentalism":
the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal
birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at
the time of the second coming of Christ. As the fundamentalist way of
reading the Bible spread to other parts of the world, it gave rise to other
ways of interpretation, equally "literalist," in Europe, Asia, Africa and
South America. As the 20th century comes to an end, this kind of
interpretation is winning more and more adherents, in religious groups and
sects, as also among Catholics.
Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible,
the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its
five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in
an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach
might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points
of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and
salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind
of critical research.
The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that,
refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical
revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the
incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks
to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit
that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that
this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors
possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to
treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the
Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in
language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention
to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the
biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over
long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical
situations.
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain
details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events
or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from
the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything
that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take
the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.
Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems
presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek
form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or
present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of the "re-readings"
(<re-lectures>) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.
In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the
development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of
this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the
words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism
neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities
themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his
message. But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic
origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus
misrepresents the call voiced by the Gospel itself.
Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It
accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply
because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a
broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its
relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to
reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by
prejudices-racism, for example-quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.
Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone,"
fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the tradition,
which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with
Scripture in the heart of the community of faith. It fails to realize that
the New Testament took form within the Christian church and that it is the
Holy Scripture of this church, the existence of which preceded the
composition of the texts. Because of this, fundamentalism is often
anti-church, it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and
liturgical practices which have become part of church tradition, as well as
the teaching function of the church itself. It presents itself as a form of
private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the church is founded
on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who
look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive
these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory,
instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an
immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so
many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual
suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses
the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human
limitations.
Ghostman
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 06:21:56 GMT, Ghostman <ghos...@ghost.com> wrote:
>
>>One fine day in alt.atheism, John W fired a few neurons and wrote
>>
>>> Do you look for truth, or do you only seek error?
>>>
>>> Satan does that. Who is YOUR master?
>>>
>>> John W
>>
>>I am my own master, of course. There are none other.
>>
>>Why do you think we are controlled by supernatural forces? Why do you
>>think the human race is nothing better than a box of toys dumped out
>>of Gawd's toybox on Sunday morning, to be tossed about, stomped upon,
>>then carelessly thrown back in whilst his mother holds him painfully
>>by the ear?
>
> Sorry that has been your experience with "religion". The fact is, you
> are describing enslavement to Satan, whom you now serve, rather than
> the God of the Bible whom you have never met.
Have you? Really?
>
> The God of the Bible is not the One whom you describe. You are
> inventing behavior that appears no where in scripture.
Most of you theists do the same. Consider the following verses:
1 John 4:8 - "God is love."
1Corinthians 13:4 - "Love is not jealous."
Exodus 20:5 - "I, the Lord thy God am a jealous God."
Taken together, as if the bible is the inerrant word of God, either God
cannot logically exist or the Bible is incorrect.
>
> Now WHO would want to lie about God? You are Satan!
>
Pot, kettle, black.
I am a living, verifyable person. Satan is a character in a storybook.
You are perfectly willing to lie about me. If you think I am lying about
your god, please show me some concrete evidence to the contrary. Prove me
wrong.
Ghostman
>
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 07:10:32 GMT, Ghostman <ghos...@ghost.com> wrote:
>
>>One fine day in alt.atheism, Devon Hill fired a few neurons and wrote
>>
>>> Gotta love these liberal idiots that havn't a clue what exegesis
>>> means.....
>>>
>>> Your some Biblical Scholar aren't you........I bet you even read a
>>> book by Spong and believe that that is credible!
>>>
>>
>>Nice retort, you top-posting moron.
[Top-posting fixed]
> Since when did YOU become the Usenet police?
>
> John W
>
When you top-post, it destroys the continuity of a thread. Top-posting is
a common practice of Usenet newbies using programs like Outlook Express,
which place the cursor in that position by default. It is common Usenet
etiquette not to top-post, as others become disgruntled having to untangle
the replies. Chronic top-posters frequently end up in my bozo bin.
Daniel Kolle
>I did research years ago and keep it handy on disk Bible contradicts
>These are only a few examples of BIBLE ERRORS:
You act as if this is big news to us.
-Kolle (kohl-lee); 14. A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo is my God.
The Most Logical man in the Universe and future ruler of the Two Universes...who also Happens to be Coffee Loving.
Jan Áki Andreasen
> Big Deal, The bible also says that bats are birds.
>
> Lev. 11:13-19
> And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the
> fowls ; they shall not be eaten,
> they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
> 14 And the vulture, and the
> kite after his kind; 15 Every raven after his kind; 16 And the owl, and
> the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 17 And the
> little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18 And the swan, and
> the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19 And the stork, the heron after her
> kind, and the lapwing, and THE BAT.
Sorry, no contradictions!
The Hebrew word for "fowls" is "ofe" meaning not only birds, but also all
flying creatures, i.e. birds, winged insects etc.
Why does it then say "fowls" in KJV?
Because it is originated from the old Anglo-Saxon word "fleon", i.e. "to
fly"; and thereby confirm the original meaning of the Hebrew word "oof",
which "ofe" derives from, meaning "to fly"
The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament Hebrew "ofe" is, in
English, "winged creatures"
Every occurrences in Genesis, in Lev. 11 and 17 and 20, in Deut.14, in 1
Kings 4, in Job 12, in Ezekiel 38, in Hosea 2 and 4, and finally, in
Zephaniah 1 use the Hebrew word "ofe" as "all flying, winged creatures".
Conclusion: God does not call a bat a bird - but a "flying or winged
creature".
These are the 70 occasions that "ofe" occurs in the Old Testament:
(for those who are interested in word study)
Gen. 1:20-22, 26, 28, 30 (All flying creations)
Gen. 2:19-20 (The manor they were created)
Gen. 6:7, 20 (All flying creations)
Gen. 7:3, 8, 14, 21, 23 (All flying creations)
Gen. 8:17, 19-20 (All flying creations)
Gen. 9:2, 10 (All flying creations)
Gen. 40:17, 19 (Birds - type of judgement in Joseph's dream interpretation)
Lev. 1:14 (Birds - the relative cost of the sacrifice)
Lev. 7:26 (Birds - sacrificial Kosher)
Lev. 11:13, 20-21, 23, 46 (Unclean winged creatures among birds, insects
etc.)
Lev. 17:13 (Birds- blood of wild game)
Lev. 20:25 (All flying creations - distinguish between clean and unclean)
Deut. 14:19-20 (All flying creations - distinguish between clean and
unclean)
Deut. 28:26 (Birds - used in judgement on the disobedient)
1 Sam. 17:44, 46 (Birds - used in judgement)
2 Sam. 21:10 (Birds - keeping them from dead bodies)
1 Kings 4:33 (All flying creations - used by wisdom of Solomon)
1 Kings 14:11 (Birds - eating dead bodies)
1 Kings 16:4 (Birds - eating dead bodies)
1 Kings 21:24 (Birds - eating dead bodies)
Job 12:7 (All flying creations - confirm Gods creation)
Job 28:21 (Birds - used as a type of heavenward view)
Job 35:11 (Birds - used as a type of heavenward wisdom)
Psalm 50:11 (Birds - created and owned by God)
Psalm 78:27 (Birds - the Quails in the wilderness)
Psalm 79:2 (Birds - eating dead bodies)
Psalm 104:12 (Birds - type of origin of water, the sky's)
Eccl. 10:20 (Birds - type of that the "walls have ears)
Isaiah 16:2 (Birds - type of judgement on Moab)
Jeremiah 4:25 (Birds - fled by the war trumpets)
Jeremiah 5:27 (Birds - type of the amount of deceit)
Jeremiah 7:33 (Birds - eating dead bodies)
Jeremiah 9:10 (Birds - type of the lack of knowing God)
Jeremiah 12:4 (Birds - type of food)
Jeremiah 15:3 (Birds - type of destruction)
Jeremiah 16:4 (Birds - eating dead bodies)
Jeremiah 19:7 (Birds - eating dead bodies)
Jeremiah 34:20 (Birds - eating dead bodies)
Ezekiel 29:5 (Birds - used in the proclamation against Egypt)
Ezekiel 31:6, 13 (Birds - type of nations subjecting to Egypt)
Ezekiel 32:4 (Birds - eating dead bodies)
Ezekiel 38:20 (All flying creations - shake at Gods presence)
Ezekiel 44:31 (Birds - sacrificial Kosher)
Hoseas 2:18 (All flying creations - the new mercy covenant)
Hoseas 4:3 (All flying creations - removed in judgement)
Hoseas 7:12 (Birds - type of judgement)
Hoseas 9:11 (Bird - type of glory flying away)
Zephaniah 1:3 (All flying creations - condemned on the Day of the Lord)
Sincerely yours in the Lord Jesus Christ!
Jan Áki Andreasen
Pastor-Teacher, Greenland
Honus
<snip>
> And you're such a scum bag, you'd probably say "big deal!" if I told
> you how you persecute Christians!
<snip>
> In Christ,
"In Christ"? You idiot, if you knew what a scumbag really was you wouldn't
be calling him that.
Or would you?
By the way, dolt...it's a condom. A disposable bit of latex that you blow
your nasty little wad into, and then discard. -Not- a pleasant thing. Either
you knew what it meant and didn't care, or you used a dirty word that you
didn't understand, just like your mommy told you -not- to do. Now then:
since you're now familiar with the meaning of the word, Christian, just out
of curiosity, are you going to continue your usage of that word followed by
your "In Christ" salutation?
--
Remove the backwards NOSPAM in the email address to reply to my personal
mailbox.
Visit http://home.earthlink.net/~honus1/
A collection of so-called religious miracles
including (but not limited to) Jesus in burnt
tortillas, the Virgin Mary in the barks of trees,
and the name Allah in various vegetables.
All with appropriate (or inappropriate) commentary.
Honus
news:Xns92F562F281...@24.25.0.66...
> "Jacobugath" <jacob...@insightbb.com> wrote in
> news:aohQ9.573812$QZ.81923@sccrnsc02:
>
> >> I notice that you do not address the point made.
> >>
> >> How did Noah know which animals were clean, and which were not?
> >
> > The Gospel of Jesus Christ was not new and original with Christ
> > himself. It existed from Adam. The laws concerning clean and
> > unclean beasts may not have originated with Moses.
So, you're saying that Adam and Eve had dietary restrictions (other than a
tree or two)? And that they were eating meat (just not certain types) while
they were in the Garden of Eden?
John W
That is your opinion. There are millions of us who have experienced
him and we know you are lying. To make a statement like the one above
means you are Satanic.
>You are perfectly willing to lie about me.
I haven't lied about you. You are in a Christian group; take your
licks! You act/talk like Satan in here, that's what you're gonna get
called!
If you think I am lying about your god, please show me some
concrete evidence to the contrary. Prove me wrong.
I only educate those who are looking to be educated; you are not; you
are not a sincere seeker, therefore scripture tells us Christians "do
not cast your pearls to the pigs."
When you can come humbly, you may get answers; until then, not from
THIS elder!
Happy New Year!
In Christ,
John W
John W
wrote:
>"John W" <john_Wea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:oq331vgbsq31uql9e...@4ax.com...
>
><snip>
>
>> And you're such a scum bag, you'd probably say "big deal!" if I told
>> you how you persecute Christians!
>
><snip>
>
>> In Christ,
>
>"In Christ"? You idiot, if you knew what a scumbag really was you wouldn't
>be calling him that.
You call me an idiot, and you then expect polite adult discourse?
LOL!
>
>Or would you?
Would/shall.
>
>By the way, dolt...it's a condom.
No poo poo!
A disposable bit of latex that you blow
>your nasty little wad into, and then discard. -Not- a pleasant thing. Either
>you knew what it meant and didn't care, or you used a dirty word that you
>didn't understand, just like your mommy told you -not- to do.
None of the above. When it fits, I use adult words for people engaged
in naughty behavior; trying to snap the silly disobedient child out of
you and shake you back to reality! i see it didn't work! But take my
word for it, Jim, Jesus wasn't above name calling when it fit.
In your case, scum bag just sorta fits.
Now then:
>since you're now familiar with the meaning of the word, Christian,
That I am... Christian.
just out
>of curiosity, are you going to continue your usage of that word followed by
>your "In Christ" salutation?
Depends on my mood.
John W
>One fine day in alt.atheism, John W fired a few neurons and wrote
>
>
>>
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 07:10:32 GMT, Ghostman <ghos...@ghost.com> wrote:
>>
>>>One fine day in alt.atheism, Devon Hill fired a few neurons and wrote
>>>
>>>> Gotta love these liberal idiots that havn't a clue what exegesis
>>>> means.....
>>>>
>>>> Your some Biblical Scholar aren't you........I bet you even read a
>>>> book by Spong and believe that that is credible!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nice retort, you top-posting moron.
>
>[Top-posting fixed]
>
>> Since when did YOU become the Usenet police?
>>
>> John W
>>
>
>When you top-post, it destroys the continuity of a thread. Top-posting is
>a common practice of Usenet newbies using programs like Outlook Express,
>which place the cursor in that position by default. It is common Usenet
>etiquette not to top-post, as others become disgruntled having to untangle
>the replies. Chronic top-posters frequently end up in my bozo bin.
Bozo bin sounds like a good place for you to put me!
John W
John W
In Christ,
John W
<ktay...@qwest.net> wrote:
Correct. I didn't address the point made. These questions aren't
sincere questions from seekers; they are insolent. I've answered them
more than once, and the person merely changed the subject.
My major in seminary and for 10 years before it was apologetics.
But I don't bother with this kid stuff anymore. Get serious and we'll
talk!
In Christ,
John W
John W
John W
In Christ,
John W
Thanks SO much, Jan!
In Christ,
John W
John W
You non-fundamentalists sure give us fundamentalists a bad time.
We love the Lord, and we protect His word. How you interpret that Word
is between you and His Holy Spirit.
Before you decry ALL Fundamentalists, you might interview ALL
fundamentalists; not just the uneducated ones.
Miriam Blaylock
I believe that it was Joseph, Cardinal Ratzinger who first described
fundamnetalism as intellectual suicide. The literal inerrancy of the
Bible concept was objectionable to many theologians.
--
"It's Delebes. I play it to relax."
Miriam Blaylock
Billy Goat
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 06:21:56 GMT, Ghostman <ghos...@ghost.com> wrote:
>
> >One fine day in alt.atheism, John W fired a few neurons and wrote
> >
> >>
> >> Satan does that. Who is YOUR master?
> >>
> >> John W
> >
> >I am my own master, of course. There are none other.
> >
> >Why do you think we are controlled by supernatural forces? Why do you
> >think the human race is nothing better than a box of toys dumped out of
> >Gawd's toybox on Sunday morning, to be tossed about, stomped upon, then
> >carelessly thrown back in whilst his mother holds him painfully by the ear?
>
> Sorry that has been your experience with "religion".
If you're so sorry, then why do you insist on confirming and
continuing the horrible experience by saying things like: "you serve
Satan" and "You are Satan!"
--Billy
Honus
news:lqj41vsttbf2ms95i...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 01:38:49 GMT, "Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"John W" <john_Wea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:oq331vgbsq31uql9e...@4ax.com...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> And you're such a scum bag, you'd probably say "big deal!" if I told
> >> you how you persecute Christians!
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> In Christ,
> >
> >"In Christ"? You idiot, if you knew what a scumbag really was you
wouldn't
> >be calling him that.
>
> You call me an idiot, and you then expect polite adult discourse?
No, fuckwit, I don't. :) I know you too well to expect that out of you,
which is why I enjoy watching people shit on your head in response to these
inane posts of yours. Elder my ass.
> LOL!
> >
> >Or would you?
>
> Would/shall.
Watch it. I really hate spelling\grammar police.
> >By the way, dolt...it's a condom.
>
> No poo poo!
Not if you do it right. And for what it's worth, I don't think you knew the
definition. You're the kind that -can't- admit ignorance or error under any
conditions.
> A disposable bit of latex that you blow
> >your nasty little wad into, and then discard. -Not- a pleasant thing.
Either
> >you knew what it meant and didn't care, or you used a dirty word that
you
> >didn't understand, just like your mommy told you -not- to do.
>
> None of the above. When it fits, I use adult words for people engaged
> in naughty behavior; trying to snap the silly disobedient child out of
> you and shake you back to reality! i see it didn't work! But take my
> word for it, Jim, Jesus wasn't above name calling when it fit.
That's because Jesus was a racist piece of shit. Not many people are willing
to say it; I am. What was that quote you gave, something about casting
pearls before SWINE? Which of course, to a non-pork eating Jew is a terrible
insult. And I'm insulted.
> In your case, scum bag just sorta fits.
Only the magnum size.
> Now then:
> >since you're now familiar with the meaning of the word, Christian,
>
> That I am... Christian.
Yes, albeit a shitty one. I get the feeling that you think no one's going to
be in heaven but you and a handful of saints.
> just out
> >of curiosity, are you going to continue your usage of that word followed
by
> >your "In Christ" salutation?
>
> Depends on my mood.
Thought so. Thanks for the confirmation, scumbag. :)
Ghostman
>>>
>>> Now WHO would want to lie about God? You are Satan!
>>>
>>
>>Pot, kettle, black.
>>
>>I am a living, verifyable person. Satan is a character in a
>>storybook.
>
> That is your opinion. There are millions of us who have experienced
> him and we know you are lying. To make a statement like the one above
> means you are Satanic.
And to make a statement like that shows you are a hopeless loony. Go on,
throw what's left of your life away.
>
>>You are perfectly willing to lie about me.
>
> I haven't lied about you.
You called me a fictional character in a storybook. That's a lie.
> You are in a Christian group; take your
> licks! You act/talk like Satan in here, that's what you're gonna get
> called!
Look at the headers bucko. I'm posting from alt.atheism. If you don't
like what you see, trim your groups. Personally, I enjoy chasing you
intellectually challenged toads aroud the yard with a cigarette lighter,
simply because you think I am evil since I don't believe in your
superstition.
>
> If you think I am lying about your god, please show me some
> concrete evidence to the contrary. Prove me wrong.
>
> I only educate those who are looking to be educated; you are not; you
> are not a sincere seeker, therefore scripture tells us Christians "do
> not cast your pearls to the pigs."
>
> When you can come humbly, you may get answers; until then, not from
> THIS elder!
No thanks, I learned what I needed to know about your superstition when I
was merely seven. If a seven year old can see through your lies, why do
you think a 47 year old would succumb?
>
> Happy New Year!
>
To you and yours!
Brian Batty
news:3E1252F0...@hunger.net...
<snip>
> "It's Delebes. I play it to relax."
> Miriam Blaylock
"Are you making a pass at me, Mrs. Blaylock?"
Dr. Sarah Roberts
Ghostman
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:22:28 GMT, "Unit335"
> <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>I constantly look for the truth, none of which have I found in the
>>Blood Cult document known as The Bible.
>
> I'm SO glad you said that. Your foolishness ABOUNDS!
>
Matthew 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say,
Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
You guys preach and preach about the perfect inerrency of gawd's divine
word, yet you only follow the parts you like and discard the rest. John W,
you are No True Christian.
<Ground opens up under John W, John W does a cannonball into yon lake of
fire>
bryan vegh
> Matthew 5:22
> But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
> cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his
> brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say,
> Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
>
> You guys preach and preach about the perfect inerrency of gawd's divine
> word, yet you only follow the parts you like and discard the rest. John
W,
> you are No True Christian.
I have a hard time being a true christian because the definition seems to
vary, depending on
who's doing the judging. Let's take for example, "homosexuals." One group
will say, "You should not love gay people. It's just wrong. If you love gay
people then you aren't a christian." Another group
will say, "If you love gay people, how can you be a christian? Christians
don't love gay people."
Another group will say, "You're a christian? Christians don't love gay
people. So why don't you love gay people? It's not the spirit of christian
love to not love gay people."
Another group will say, "Gay people should be shot, so if you love them,
then you should be shot, too."
Etc, etc, ad nauseum, etc. Eventually, you just determine what it is you
believe and go with what works.
Some people will accept it, some people will not. That's life.
Rev J Semerko
Fundamentalists give themselves a bad name.
I have seen many Christian fundamentalists not only giving christian
fundamentalists a bad name, but all of Christianity with their arrogant and
intolerant words and actions towards non-Christians.
Rev J Semerko
"John W" <john_wea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:epk41v0f12c0chnev...@4ax.com...
Ghostman
Here's my observation of Christian Love (tm). Thou shalt love thy
neighbor. Unless, of course, he thinks/talks/looks/believes differently
than thou, in which case he's the tool of Satan, and thou shalt exterminate
him in the name of god. Religion doesn't make any sense. That's why I
love atheism so much. As my own master I decide who I want to like or
dislike - I don't follow down the path of the so-called righteous.
bryan vegh
Here's my observation of men. lol
Gotta play your little war games with each other
and to hell with your children and wives and sisters and aunts and
grandmothers and moms, etc, the very people you were given the
responsibility to love and care for, sacrificed for whatever selfish gain -
money, power, world domination, islamic state, white state, zionist state,
yada yada .... dang, almost makes me want to get a gun and i'm a pacifist.
Maybe we'll get lucky and God will strike the earth with a virus that kills
only females and then you fellas can just kill and screw each other to your
hearts content. But seriously, WTFreak?
You can't get along AT ALL. Doesn't matter what the topic is! Religion,
sports,
politics, you name it! Grrrr, ruff. : p
How was that for christian love? If the ladies could just band together and
go live on
some islands in the ocean and refuse to go home until the men agreed to get
along with
each other, things might change. Can you imagine what a relief it would be
for all the
moms to know their children wouldn't have to go to war or die as martyrs for
islam.
And maybe then the women wouldn't have to be draped in burkhas or called
whores
or raped or.... Nah, asking too much.
John W
>One fine day in alt.atheism, John W fired a few neurons and wrote
>
>>>>
>>>> Now WHO would want to lie about God? You are Satan!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Pot, kettle, black.
>>>
>>>I am a living, verifyable person. Satan is a character in a
>>>storybook.
>>
>> That is your opinion. There are millions of us who have experienced
>> him and we know you are lying. To make a statement like the one above
>> means you are Satanic.
>
>And to make a statement like that shows you are a hopeless loony. Go on,
>throw what's left of your life away.
>
>>
>>>You are perfectly willing to lie about me.
>>
>> I haven't lied about you.
>
>You called me a fictional character in a storybook. That's a lie.
>
>> You are in a Christian group; take your
>> licks! You act/talk like Satan in here, that's what you're gonna get
>> called!
>
>
>Look at the headers bucko. I'm posting from alt.atheism. If you don't
>like what you see, trim your groups. Personally, I enjoy chasing you
>intellectually challenged toads aroud the yard with a cigarette lighter,
>simply because you think I am evil since I don't believe in your
>superstition.
Look at the headers yourself. YOU cross posted. If you don't want the
Christians all over your hide, delete the baptist group when you cross
post.
If you are going to post this trash to 10 groups, including mine, I'm
gonna be on your back!
As for intellectually challenged, I'm not going to get into a pissing
contest, but I'll match mine to yours ANY day! I'll SPOT you 5!
>
>>
>> If you think I am lying about your god, please show me some
>> concrete evidence to the contrary. Prove me wrong.
At any rate, I can't answer your challenge since you snipped your
reference off when you snipped this for this new list. I'm not going
to go back, so You can just plunk it back in next time.
>>
>> I only educate those who are looking to be educated; you are not; you
>> are not a sincere seeker, therefore scripture tells us Christians "do
>> not cast your pearls to the pigs."
>>
>> When you can come humbly, you may get answers; until then, not from
>> THIS elder!
>
>No thanks, I learned what I needed to know about your superstition when I
>was merely seven.
You haven't learned anything since you were 7! How TERRIBLY SAD! You
must have been VERY hurt! Didn't get that dolly? Didn't get that
tricycle? Awwwwww!
Grow up! You don't accomplish anything setting your feet in concrete
as a child and living that way.
If a seven year old can see through your lies, why do
>you think a 47 year old would succumb?
I'm 55 and I'm more convinced now than 30 years ago! How do you answer
fulfilled prophesy? By not knowing about them! How to you answer
miracles? By ignoring them?
Funny how some dummies think you need a brain to be an atheist. Since
you can't prove atheism, it doesn't take a brain to be an atheist.
I perhaps haven't come up with a proof of God, yet; I've certainly
come up with a logic that He probably DOES exist. Two, in fact, one of
which I derived from Dr. C.S. Lewis.
I am not going to bother to type either in until you ask for them.
Frankly, I don't believe you're interested!
In Christ,
John W
>
>>
>> Happy New Year!
>>
>
>To you and yours!
In Christ,
John W
wrote:
This is a Christian News group. If you don't like that fact, don't
cross post here! And if you are in this group, and you act like Satan,
then there are those of us who will say so!
Don't like it? Remove baptist from your list.
In Christ,
John W
>
>--Billy
John W
A heretic Jew! Interesting!
And don't be insulted about the reference to swine. That's phony, and
we keep it real in baptist.
John W
On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 03:05:06 GMT, "Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net>
wrote:
In Christ,
John W
>One fine day in alt.atheism, John W fired a few neurons and wrote
>
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:22:28 GMT, "Unit335"
>> <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I constantly look for the truth, none of which have I found in the
>>>Blood Cult document known as The Bible.
>>
>> I'm SO glad you said that. Your foolishness ABOUNDS!
>>
>
>Matthew 5:22
>But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
>cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his
>brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say,
>Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
>
>You guys preach and preach about the perfect inerrency of gawd's divine
>word, yet you only follow the parts you like and discard the rest. John W,
>you are No True Christian.
Was there a point somewhere? If so, I missed it. Try again!
>
><Ground opens up under John W, John W does a cannonball into yon lake of
>fire>
You're complaining about someone being threatened? Hohoho! Don't worry
about the threats if you obey some very common sense rules. But then
YOU can't do that, can you?
It's kinda like, God's in charge, since He made us; and we (you and I)
have to obey some common sense rules.
Who you gonna trust? The cops or God? The cops can cast your butt into
jail. God can cast you into hell!
That's called "Them's the facts!" Deal with it!
In Christ,
John W
(this is my sermon for the apostates, blasphemers, and heretics= YOU!)
God loves you, but you gotta clean up your act!
John W
wrote:
Interesting comment. And in 50 years of being a Christian, and after
attending some 20 different Christian churches, I've NEVER heard those
words.
In Christ,
John W
John W
Atheism is nothing but the deification of Self.
If you can't say you've read EVERY book, EVERY magazine, EVERY
document of any kind; if you can't say you've been everywhere in the
universe simultaneously, you can't say "there is no God." God is
merely the One whom you have not yet discovered; and likely you won't
see Him until too late, since you aren't even searching.
You are Mammon. You serve man, rather than God.
John W
In Christ,
John W
wrote:
In this life, yes, you're asking too much! You'd know what to expect
and you'd be prepared for it all if you'd just read/heed the Bible!
In Christ,
John W
John W
Oh! I've always found that it's Roman Catholicism that is intellectual
suicide. Putting the Roman Catholic church as superior to Revealed
Scripture is offensive to THOUSANDS of conservative scholars.
In Christ,
John W
In Christ,
John W
------
John W
<j-se...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>John,
>
>Fundamentalists give themselves a bad name.
>I have seen many Christian fundamentalists not only giving christian
>fundamentalists a bad name, but all of Christianity with their arrogant and
>intolerant words and actions towards non-Christians.
>
>Rev J Semerko
>
I could not agree more. Yet I am and was raised fundamentalist, and if
you don't go to the DEEP south, fundamentalists are educated and
professional as anyone else.
Do you consider Jerry Falwell representative of ALL Baptists? I hope
not! He has his POV. But he IS a born again Christian! (And he's
quieted down in his older years.)
Dr Billy Graham, a fundamentalist, has perhaps made more concessions
than some are comfortable with in order to spread the gospel. But
Christian? Yes!
In Christ,
John W
bryan vegh
I do. I'm a christian, but I'm also a mom, a wife, a daughter, a sister, an
aunt, a
daughter-in-law, and a grandaughter. All this killing is very unbiblical.
The way
women are treated everywhere, is unbiblical. Raping, murdering, stoning to
death,
chopping off their hands, hanging them, etc. It's wrong. Whenever a man
comes
up to me and tries to tell me christianity is a joke, I'm just hold up a
mirror and say
join the comedy pal.
Ghostman
>
> You're complaining about someone being threatened? Hohoho! Don't worry
> about the threats if you obey some very common sense rules. But then
> YOU can't do that, can you?
>
> It's kinda like, God's in charge, since He made us; and we (you and I)
> have to obey some common sense rules.
>
> Who you gonna trust? The cops or God? The cops can cast your butt into
> jail. God can cast you into hell!
>
> That's called "Them's the facts!" Deal with it!
>
I have dealt with it. I paid attention in school when they taught us about
reality. Things like evolution that prove that Man evolved through time -
much, much more than the 6,000 years your storybook talks about. Things
like astronomy that show the universe has been around for 14 billion years
or more. These are the facts, John. Yes, the cops can put me in jail - if
I've committed a crime. I've never been there, but I know it exists. I
had to bail a friend out once. And I've talked to people who have been
there. I can't say that about hell, and neither can you. That's the bad
part about heaven and hell. They require faith and belief while reality
just *is*.
That would be fine and dandy, but let's look at what you are required to
have faith in:
* The entire population of the earth - black, white, yellow, red,
caucasion, asian, etc. - was generated from one man, and one woman, created
from a handful of mud.
* The entire population of the earth was led into original sin by a
talking snake.
* God, angry at the scourge of evil on the earth, murdered every living
human being on the planet - except a handful of his "righteous ones", and
two (or seven) of each and every animal, fish, bird, insect, etc. - some 30
million species - who all somehow fit on a wooden boat some 450 feet long,
and somehow didn't eat each other or die while out of their natural habitat
for a year - with a flood that would have required more water than exists
anywhere within 100 light years of the solar system.
* Of course, the above was a complete failure, since there is much
more evil on the earth today, especially within the ranks of those claiming
to be following the word of a god.
* A righteous one named Moses had a magic wand.
Moving right along, the faithful are also asked to believe:
* that the Nile turned to blood;
* that a stick turned into a snake;
* that witches, wizards, and sorcerers really exist;
* that food rained from the sky for forty years;
* that people were cured from the sight of a brass serpent;
* that the sun stood still to help Joshua win a battle, and it went
backward for King Hezekiah;
* that men survived unaided in a fiery furnace;
* that a detached hand floated in the air and wrote on a wall;
* that men followed a star which directed them to a particular house;
* that Jesus walked on water unaided;
* that fish and bread magically multiplied to feed the hungry;
* that water instantly turned into wine;
* that mental illness is caused by demons;
* that a "devil" with wings exists who causes evil;
* that people were healed by stepping into a pool agitated by angels;
* that disembodied voices spoke from the sky;
* that Jesus vanished and later materialized from thin air;
* that people were healed by Peter's shadow;
* that angels broke people out of jail;
* that a fiery lake of eternal torment awaits unbelievers under the earth …
while there is life-after-death in a city which is 1500 miles cubed, with
mansions and food, for Christians only.
These things are supposedly documented in biblical scripture, but the fact
is that they simply don't happen in reality. Which makes me just a teensy
bit skeptical that "God's in charge because he made us". It's a good thing
these rules you mentioned are common sense, because the rest of it is utter
horse shit.
Of course this only means that life after death is nothing more than
wishful thinking.
Deal with it.
Ghostman
>
> Look at the headers yourself. YOU cross posted. If you don't want the
> Christians all over your hide, delete the baptist group when you cross
> post.
Bzzzzzt! Try again, asshole. I replied to you, who ignorantly left
alt.atheism in the list of groups crossposted to. As I mentioned before,
I'm game for anything you can bring to this arena, and I couldn't care less
who's watching.
>
> If you are going to post this trash to 10 groups, including mine, I'm
> gonna be on your back!
Thank you for your opinion.
>
> As for intellectually challenged, I'm not going to get into a pissing
> contest, but I'll match mine to yours ANY day! I'll SPOT you 5!
Give it your best shot, weenie. Just be sure to grow a brain first.
Anyone who'd listen to stories about talking donkeys and flying demons,
then think they had anything to do with *this* reality is certainly missing
a few cells.
<snip>
>
> You haven't learned anything since you were 7! How TERRIBLY SAD! You
> must have been VERY hurt! Didn't get that dolly? Didn't get that
> tricycle? Awwwwww!
>
> Grow up! You don't accomplish anything setting your feet in concrete
> as a child and living that way.
Argument ad hominem. It's the first sign of losing a battle.
<snip>
Tiger
Ghostman <ghos...@ghost.com> wrote:
> That would be fine and dandy, but let's look at what you are required
> to have faith in:
>
> * The entire population of the earth - black, white, yellow, red,
> caucasion, asian, etc. - was generated from one man, and one woman,
> created from a handful of mud.
Incorrect.
>
> * The entire population of the earth was led into original sin by a
> talking snake.
Incorrect.
>
> * God, angry at the scourge of evil on the earth, murdered every
> living human being on the planet - except a handful of his "righteous
> ones", and two (or seven) of each and every animal, fish, bird,
> insect, etc. - some 30 million species - who all somehow fit on a
> wooden boat some 450 feet long, and somehow didn't eat each other or
> die while out of their natural habitat for a year - with a flood that
> would have required more water than exists anywhere within 100 light
> years of the solar system.
Incorrect.
>
> * Of course, the above was a complete failure, since there is much
> more evil on the earth today, especially within the ranks of those
> claiming to be following the word of a god.
>
> * A righteous one named Moses had a magic wand.
Incorrect.
>
> Moving right along, the faithful are also asked to believe:
>
> * that the Nile turned to blood;
> * that a stick turned into a snake;
> * that witches, wizards, and sorcerers really exist;
> * that food rained from the sky for forty years;
> * that people were cured from the sight of a brass serpent;
> * that the sun stood still to help Joshua win a battle, and it went
> backward for King Hezekiah;
> * that men survived unaided in a fiery furnace;
> * that a detached hand floated in the air and wrote on a wall;
> * that men followed a star which directed them to a particular house;
> * that Jesus walked on water unaided;
> * that fish and bread magically multiplied to feed the hungry;
> * that water instantly turned into wine;
> * that mental illness is caused by demons;
> * that a "devil" with wings exists who causes evil;
> * that people were healed by stepping into a pool agitated by angels;
> * that disembodied voices spoke from the sky;
> * that Jesus vanished and later materialized from thin air;
> * that people were healed by Peter's shadow;
> * that angels broke people out of jail;
> * that a fiery lake of eternal torment awaits unbelievers under the
> earth … while there is life-after-death in a city which is 1500 miles
> cubed, with mansions and food, for Christians only.
>
<yawn>
> These things are supposedly documented in biblical scripture, but the
> fact is that they simply don't happen in reality. Which makes me just
> a teensy bit skeptical that "God's in charge because he made us".
> It's a good thing these rules you mentioned are common sense, because
> the rest of it is utter horse shit.
>
Nice strawman. Were you named Quixote in a former life?
--
Tiger
*Remove yourclothes. to reply via email
Karl E. Taylor
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 06:20:15 -0700, "Karl E. Taylor"
> <ktay...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>
>>John W wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 05:19:25 -0700, "Karl E. Taylor"
>>><ktay...@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Unit335 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>TWO Vs Seven animals: So was it two of "EVERY LIVING THING" (Gen 6:19) or
>>>>>was it seven pairs of clean and two unclean? And while we're on the subject,
>>>>>what about the insects and birds? How did Noah keep the birds from eating
>>>>>the insects and the lions from eating everything? How did he Noah feed them?
>>>>>This is thousands of species of mammals alone we're speaking of.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Once again, you have failed miserably to address the contradiction. I guess
>>>>>it can be concluded from your silence on the dozen or so other points made
>>>>>by Hunter that you actually don't know what the hell you're talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The one I always like in this whole 2 vs 7 animals claptrap, is the
>>>>clean aspect.
>>>>
>>>>How did Noah know which animals were "clean" and which were not? The
>>>>law regarding clean and unclean animals would not be given by the sky
>>>>daddy till Moses. Yet, here is a man and his family, supposedly,
>>>>hundreds of years before Moses, dividing up clean and unclean animals.
>>>>
>>>>If this god creature gave the law of clean / unclean to Noah, then why
>>>>did it have to give it again to Moses? If, as is suggested in the
>>>>story, it did not give the law to Noah, then how did Noah know which
>>>>animal was clean, and which was not?
>>>>
>>>>Of course, being that it is mythology does make it very easy to pick
>>>>apart the errors. It's not supposed to be a literal story, but an
>>>>allegory. A moralistic tale with an outcome designed to invoke a reader
>>>>to ponder.
>>>>
>>>>Those who would take mythology as fact, fail to recognize the function
>>>>of fables.
>>>
>>>
>>>Those who would reduce the entire Bible to allegories and mythologies
>>>fail to recognize and appreciate the power of the Bible.
>>>
>>>And how do you know they were fables? Were you there to make note that
>>>the author of the book didn't get it quite right?
>>>
>>>You call "OBVIOUS FABLES" those parts you don't wish to believe. And
>>>the part about sinful mankind needing to be redeemed REALLY sticks in
>>>your craw, doesn't it?
>>>
>>>Yet time and miracles that continue and prophesy that continues to be
>>>fulfilled prove to we, the open minded, that we are correct.
>>>
>>>Prophesy continues to be fulfilled in our lifetimes. Miracles still
>>>happen. Praise God! Don't bother the atheists! Their heads are so far
>>>up their butts they can't see daylight, attempting to hide from God.
>>>
>>>Did you know the Bible says the earth is round? And that was written
>>>back when "scientists" believed the earth was FLAT!
>>>
>>
>>I notice that you do not address the point made.
>>
>>How did Noah know which animals where clean, and which were not?
>
>
> Correct. I didn't address the point made. These questions aren't
> sincere questions from seekers; they are insolent. I've answered them
> more than once, and the person merely changed the subject.
>
> My major in seminary and for 10 years before it was apologetics.
>
> But I don't bother with this kid stuff anymore. Get serious and we'll
> talk!
>
IOW's, you have no answer. Thanks for playing.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@qwest.net
A.A #1143 ULC Minister
Home School Educator for Computer Science
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Scott
Oh! And just who are these thousands of conservative scholars? Each and
every Southern Baptist who believes they themselves (w/ the help of the HS,
of course) and having little or no understanding of the cultural historicity
in the Bible are all that's necessary to know who is intellectually
suicidal?
Sean Johansen
"Truth Hunter" <hunter2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c37d5a91.02123...@posting.google.com...
> I did research years ago and keep it handy on disk Bible contradicts
> These are only a few examples of BIBLE ERRORS:
>
>
>
evidence.
"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is TRANSLATED
correctly. We believe the _Book of Mormon_ TO BE THE WORD OF GOD"
> God creates animals and then man - Gen 1:25-26
> God creates man and then the animals - Gen 2:18-19
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> The earth will exist for ever - Ecc 1:4
> The earth will be destroyed - 2 Pet 3:10
> ______________________________
> Noah takes 7 pairs of each type of animal onto the ark
> - Gen 7:2-3
> Noah takes one pair of animal onto the ark - Gen 6:19
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> The importance of wisdom - Proverbs 4:7
> The unimportance of wisdom - 1 Cor 1:19
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> The joy of wisdom - Proverbs 3:13-15
> The misery of wisdom - Ecc 1:18
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> Drinking alcohol is acceptable - Deuteronomy 14:26,
> John 2:7-11, 1 Timothy 5:23
> Drinking alcohol is not acceptable - Proverbs 20:1,
> 23:31-34, Hosea 20:1
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> People choose not to come to Jesus - John 5:40
> People can only come to Jesus if God wills it - John
> 6:44
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> Jesus judges - John 5:22,27, 9:39, 2 Corinthians 5:10
> Jesus does not judge - John 8:15, 12:47
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> Satan is free to act as he pleases - Job 1:6-7, 2:1-2,
> Zech 3;1, Matt 4:1, 1 Pet 5:8
> The angels who rebelled against God are chained up -
> Jude 6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> No one born of God sins - 1 John 3:9
> Everyone sins - Rom 3:23, 1 John 1:8
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> Those who go into the grave will never arise - Job
> 7:7,9, 14:10,12
> Those who go into the grave will arise - John 5:28-29,
> 11:24, 1 Cor 15:12-18,20-23,52, Rev 20:4
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> The dead are unconscious - Job 14:12, Ecc 9:5, Dan 12:2
> The dead are conscious - Mark 9:4, Luke 16:22-23, Rev
> 6:9-10
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> No one has ever seen God - Ex 33:17,20, John 1:18, 1
> Tim 6:15-16,
> People have seen God - Gen 32:30, Ex 24:9-10, 33:11,21-
> 23, Isa 6:5, Deut 5:24, Amos 9:1
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> God is not responsible for confusion - 1 Cor 14:33
> God is responsible for confusion - Isa 45:7
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Dread
vern...@nospamcontractor.net says...
>
> "bryan vegh" <bv...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:jccQ9.179913$Db4.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...> > news:Xns92F4E2...@127.0.0.1...
> >
> >
> > > Vulgarity is a part of life.
> > > It can actually be fun sometimes.
> >
> > I think why religious people find it offensive is because
>
> Only idiots or those out of control run out of descriptive words.
> Without intelligence the sounds uttered are just that, sounds, like diarrhea
> of the brain.
Well, that's an often-repeated thought, but that doesn't mean it's
accurate. Many wonderful intelligent men swore on occasion. Sometimes a
swear word fits better than anything else.
--
Vsevo Khoroshego,
Dread Atheist #1299
They know that we represent reason and
science, and, however confident they
may be in their beliefs, they fear
that we will overthrow their gods. Not
necessarily through any deliberate act,
but in a subtler fashion. Science can
destroy religion by ignoring it as
well as by disproving its tenets. No
one ever demonstrated so far as I am
aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or
Thor but they have few followers now.
Arthur C. Clarke - Childhood's End
**** Disclaimer ****
Unless responding to a cross-post, I only post to Alt.Atheism. My words
are not to be taken as any other atheist viewpoint. This is my view and
my view only.
For the simplicity of discussion, I may or may not refer to a god or your
god as if he is real. By no means, assume that I really believe in a god
or your god in particular.
Dread
bv...@cfl.rr.com says...
Can I presume from your posts it is your belief that atheism causes these
wars? I would move to point out that the 9/11 incident was because of
religious beliefs. Personally, this atheist is a humanist and generally
don't believe in war. There is a time and a place for it though. You can
only "turn your cheek" so much.
--
Vsevo Khoroshego,
Dread Atheist #1299
I cannot see why we should expect an
infinite God to do better in another
world than he does in this. [Robert
Green Ingersoll, Reply To The
Indianapolis Clergy The Iconoclast,
Indianapolis, Indiana (1882)]
Dread
@yahoo.com says...
> Sad, and the probability of God is SO easy to prove.
> Atheism is nothing but the deification of Self.
>
> If you can't say you've read EVERY book, EVERY magazine, EVERY
> document of any kind; if you can't say you've been everywhere in the
> universe simultaneously, you can't say "there is no God." God is
Atheism does not say there "isn't" a god. Atheism says "I don't see
enough/any proof to cause me to believe in one". Before you begin to
argue a point, you must start out from this standpoint.
Dread
@yahoo.com says...
You obviously have never been to a KKK meeting. These are typical
comments amongst men who are racist, bigots and also who claim to be
Christian. These people will attempt to back up their hatred with the
same book you keep posting from.
Dread
@yahoo.com says...
> On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 05:28:46 GMT, Ghostman <ghos...@ghost.com> wrote:
>
> >One fine day in alt.atheism, John W fired a few neurons and wrote
> >
> >> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:22:28 GMT, "Unit335"
> >> <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I constantly look for the truth, none of which have I found in the
> >>>Blood Cult document known as The Bible.
> >>
> >> I'm SO glad you said that. Your foolishness ABOUNDS!
> >>
> >
> >Matthew 5:22
> >But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
> >cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his
> >brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say,
> >Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
> >
> >You guys preach and preach about the perfect inerrency of gawd's divine
> >word, yet you only follow the parts you like and discard the rest. John W,
> >you are No True Christian.
>
> Was there a point somewhere? If so, I missed it. Try again!
> >
> ><Ground opens up under John W, John W does a cannonball into yon lake of
> >fire>
>
> You're complaining about someone being threatened? Hohoho! Don't worry
> about the threats if you obey some very common sense rules. But then
> YOU can't do that, can you?
Funny, I've had death threats against my family and myself because I have
an atheist website that I, simply put, post my opinions to. The site
doesn't contain hate or bigotry. It merely states my opinion on religion
and god. Yet these people say the same thing you do here. "I'm the
devil. I'm Satan incarnate". Then they follow this by wanting to kill my
family. Yes, religious people make me feel threatened. For the record,
my family is Baptist. I have a Baptist preacher for a brother. None of
these people have told me they want to kill me. This tells me at least
that not all religious people are hateful, but how does an atheist
determine which you are?
> It's kinda like, God's in charge, since He made us; and we (you and I)
> have to obey some common sense rules.
>
> Who you gonna trust? The cops or God? The cops can cast your butt into
> jail. God can cast you into hell!
>
> That's called "Them's the facts!" Deal with it!
These comments mean nothing to one who doesn't believe in a god nor the
place called hell. Scare tactics are worthless to an atheist. Why does a
god have to resort to scare tactics, btw?
God pursues salvation with the threat of hell. "And whosoever was not
found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" Rev.
20:15. That to me doesn't sound like the "freedom to choose" that
Christians say I was born with. If I held a gun to your head, and told you
to kill the next person walking by, OR I would kill you; do you feel that
you have a choice in the matter? Actually you do. You *could* let me shoot
you, but that doesn't sound like a really good choice. The courts has a
word for this. A decision made while under duress. You are being forced to
make the decision I want, as God forces you to make the decision he wants;
or pay the penalty. Now you can say that some would make the choice to be
shot. That is very noble and a possible choice. However, I don't think
you could really call that free-will. Just my thoughts.
--
Vsevo Khoroshego,
Dread Atheist #1299
Saying God is good for letting people
into heaven after they suffer on earth
is like thinking a rapist is
considerate for using a condom.
Dread
@yahoo.com says...
> Again, you condemn that which you do not understand; mind you, you are
> making NO EFFORT to understand; but you don't understand! Hmmmmm...
>
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:22:33 GMT, "Unit335"
> <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >John W:
> >
> >
> >
> >myself while killing a bit of time.
> >
> >
> >
> >Truth? Wading through a complete mound of bovine feces to find one jewel of
> >verifiable information.
>
> Verifiable? Such as, the Bible is the earliest work that mentions that
> the earth is round.
> Would that qualify? Have you found greater wisdom than Psalms or
> Proverbs? Have you found a more erotic pillow book than Song of
> Solomon.
>
> You aren't coming in here with any truth. You are in here with your
> disease, hating God, hating Christ, and hating the Bible. None of
> these is based on fact; all are based on the diseased philosophy of
> atheism, the "I am God" foolishness. "Besides me, there is none."
We aren't coming in here with anything. I only read alt.atheism, so I'm
replying from alt.atheism. If you want our replies to stop, trim
alt.atheism from your headers. If you don't, that means you want us to
comment on what you typed. To do so, and then to get angry over it, is
just unreasonable.
Again with the misnomer. Atheists don't have a belief in gods of any
sort. Why would we say "I am God"? Why would we feel the need to have a
god in the first place? Just because that is what or how "you" think we
are or think doesn't make it right. I don't hate god. I don't believe in
him. I don't hate Christ. I didn't know him. I don't hate the bible. I
don't agree that it is factual. That is the facts. Since you want to
call us diseased, prove to me/us how our philosophy is diseased. I have
been on the Christian side of the coin. I know how it works. It is
obvious to me that you know next to nothing about atheists.
--
Vsevo Khoroshego,
Dread Atheist #1299
They know that we represent reason and
science, and, however confident they
may be in their beliefs, they fear
that we will overthrow their gods. Not
necessarily through any deliberate act,
but in a subtler fashion. Science can
destroy religion by ignoring it as
well as by disproving its tenets. No
one ever demonstrated so far as I am
aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or
Thor but they have few followers now.
Arthur C. Clarke - Childhood's End
**** Disclaimer ****
Dread
@yahoo.com says...
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 07:10:32 GMT, Ghostman <ghos...@ghost.com> wrote:
>
> >One fine day in alt.atheism, Devon Hill fired a few neurons and wrote
> >
> >> Gotta love these liberal idiots that havn't a clue what exegesis
> >> means.....
> >>
> >> Your some Biblical Scholar aren't you........I bet you even read a
> >> book by Spong and believe that that is credible!
> >>
> >
> >Nice retort, you top-posting moron.
<fixed>
> Since when did YOU become the Usenet police?
So you want people to follow things that you consider proper manners but
if we ask the same thing, we are being police? Top-posting is bad form
and bad manners. I frequently ask that a top-poster post in the *norm* of
Usenet. This doesn't make me the gestapo. Why are you so full of hate
and so quick to judge others?
--
Vsevo Khoroshego,
Dread Atheist #1299
Religon is the crutch that cripples.
Dread
@yahoo.com says...
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:06:29 GMT, "Unit335"
> <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Devon:
> >
> >Did you somehow mistake your post for some sort of intelligence? It was
> >completely non-sequitur.
> >
> >I'm not a liberal, never claimed to be a Biblical scholar, and exegesis
> >doesn't apply here. In one chapter, there is vegetation when man is created.
> >In the next, there is man but no plants.
> >
> >No, I haven't read any of Spong's books, though I have a respect of sorts
> >for him. I don't see where your interjection has any bearing.
> >
> >Ultimately, it is a moot point. The entire Gawd concept is but a fairy tale.
>
> Actually, YOU are the fairy tale! God continues to exist.
> one proof: try finding the verse that says the earth is round. It's in
> the Old Testament.
Unit is a fairy tale? That would mean you are typing to something that
isn't real. Does this make sense to you?
You keep harping on this, so I'll bite. I'll agree this verse exists
<mainly because I don't want to bother looking for it.>. How does this
one correct fact prove the existence of a god? Even if the claim was made
before *any* other known work, this does not prove god. It proves the
bible made one claim correctly before any other known work. So why do you
keep bringing this one thing up? Can you give anything else?
Dread
monarchy_ente...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
> John W wrote:
>
> >
> >Did you know the Bible says the earth is round? And that was written
> >back when "scientists" believed the earth was FLAT!
> >
And it doesn't even bring up dinosaurs. I have a friend who is Catholic
who insists dinosaurs are not real simply because the Bible doesn't
mention them. Because a dinosaur hasn't been found in whole, he dismisses
that scientist are able to logically put together a whole skeleton because
they haven't seen a real one to know how it went together. It's madness
talking with him sometimes.
Dread
@yahoo.com says...
> In Christ,
>
> John W
>
> In Christ,
>
> John W
> ------
> "You don't break God's laws; they break you!"
> Dr. Charlie Shedd
> --------------
> Ro 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
>
I'm curious as to why you always post your sig twice? What is the point?
--
Vsevo Khoroshego,
Dread Atheist #1299
God is a virus, reason is the cure.
Scott
"Dread" <dr...@SPAMDefender.woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.187d09f4...@news-server.woh.rr.com...
> In article <3E11B0C5...@hotmail.com>,
> monarchy_ente...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> > John W wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Did you know the Bible says the earth is round? And that was written
> > >back when "scientists" believed the earth was FLAT!
> > >
> > Big Deal, The bible also says that bats are birds.
>
> And it doesn't even bring up dinosaurs. I have a friend who is Catholic
> who insists dinosaurs are not real simply because the Bible doesn't
> mention them. Because a dinosaur hasn't been found in whole, he dismisses
> that scientist are able to logically put together a whole skeleton because
> they haven't seen a real one to know how it went together. It's madness
> talking with him sometimes.
If true, your friend isn't up on his Catholicism