Re: It's Duke vs. John Paul the Second -- you choose

[thomas p.]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:hlwdjsd2-69C24E...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <sd0un8tl36i944b01...@4ax.com>,
> Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:22:17 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:28:17 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:30:01 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>> >>wrote in alt.atheism:
>> >>
>> >>>duke wrote:
>> >>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> >So the god you preach has no love.
>> >>>> Strawman. God never tortured or killed anyone.
>> >>>
>> >>>On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass,
>> >>>when
>> >>>Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn
>> >>>in
>> >>>the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of
>> >>>beast..."
>> >>
>> >>But Duke is telling us that this never happened. Duke believes his
>> >>version of his religion, but he is not delusional enough to accept the
>> >>nonsense found in the Bible.
>> >
>> >God never ever hurt one person, but to those that acts against him, the
>> >fires of
>> >hell truly await them.
>> >
>>
>> Hmmm. So all that Old Testament stuff was what? Lies? Just the
>> biblical flood alone murdered everyone on the planet, and God did
>> that. Never mind all the other examples in there....
>>
>> And Jesus never came out and contradicted anything in it... so how do
>> you feel about that, Dorkster?
>>
>> God in the New Testament just advocates a lot of murder. And promises
>> hell if you don't comply with that kind of thing.
>>
>> Nice guy you're sucking up to.
>
>
> This is where silly dukie will call you silly for not realizing that all
> that is just allegory, completely forgetting all the times he said the
> exact opposite. Does he really think nobody notices?


Do you really think he notices?

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <517f77fc$0$56786$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,

Probably not.

I'll never learn to live with that kind of cognitive dissonance.

Do you think the Red Queen is dukie's role model?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[•RLMeasures]

In article <517f77fc$0$56786$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>, "thomas p."
<gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:

• I doubt it. Sometimes it's like he did not read what he is responding
to. Another concern is his selective snipping.

[duke]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:55:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>>You wanted a new thread. Go ahead and start one.
>>>I've started plenty. You keep responding. It's your turn, Dork. Come
>>>up with something to talk about instead of hijacking other threads.
>>>You can do it!
>>But I won't, at least not for you because you always want others to cater to
>>you, grik..
>Right. How exactly is asking you for evidence getting you to cater to
>me?

You want a new thread. Go for it.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:


>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>They didn't.

Strawman.

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
our surroundings.

>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>physical effects.

But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> You can't see either one.

>So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
>available human sense.
>You can feel electricity. You may trust me on this.

Yep, but you can't see it.

>(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
>agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
>His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
>that cost insurance companies trillions every
>year)

Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.

All these clearly show the effects for the presence of our almighty God.

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:03:24 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
><seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>>On Apr 29, 1:56�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> >>Right, just like God is obvious by the effects on our surroundings.
>>
>>;
>>> >Not at all in the same way, Dork. Being able to touch physical
>>> >evidence of electricity working does not have a parallel with anything
>>> >the sky pixie is rumored to have created.
>>
>>;

>>> You can't see either one.
>>
>>So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
>>available human sense.
>>
>>You can feel electricity. You may trust me on this.
>>
>>

>>NBL

>>
>>(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
>>agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
>>His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
>>that cost insurance companies trillions every
>>year)

>C'mon NBL... you GAVE him more ammunition and he didn't even teeheehee
>it. How sad is that?

nbl is many steps more intelligent than you are.

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:47:14 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:57:26 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:19:06 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:41:18 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:33:32 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>No sugar, no salt, no yeast, etc.
>>>>>>>Wait, what?
>>>>>>>What do sugar, salt and yeast have to do with electrical power?
>>>>>>Nothing. Don't you get it.
>>>>
>>>>>Apparently you don't. You're the one who compared sugar and salt and
>>>>>yeast to advanced electrical concepts... just look up three or four
>>>>>lines.... no snipping or anything, DORK... just what you said.
>>>>
>>>>You folks brought up leavening, not me.
>>>>
>>>>>You do realize that the ingredients of matzoh are flour, oil, and
>>>>>SALT, right DORK?
>>>>
>>>>Do you see the complication here?
>>>>
>>>>At the Passover seder, it is customary to eat matzah made of flour and water ;
>>>>matzah containing eggs, wine, or fruit juice in addition to water is not
>>>>considered acceptable for use at the seder
>>
>>>>>Could you just explain to me exactly how you got me on this whole
>>>>>baking thing? Because I really don't think you understand a thing
>>>>>about how baking works...
>>
>>>>But I'm clearly your master on matzah.
>>>Strawman. Teeheehee.
>>
>>You don't know what a seder is.
>>
>
>You really have the attention span of a gnat. Try staying on topic,
>Dork.

Gotcha.

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:48:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>The fact that we have a lens in our eyeball is that exacting evidence why God is
>>here.

>There is no evidence of supernatural design in the human eyeball. It
>is in fact evidence of exceptionally bad design, so if that's your
>proof, it's spectacularly bad.

Then why do we have a lens in our eyeball?

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:44:28 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>>
>> The fact that we have a lens in our eyeball is that exacting evidence why God is
>> here.
>

>If God makes your brain retarded, does that mean your soul is retarded
>as well?

No. Your soul is not brain-sensative.

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:01:40 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:44:28 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>>
>>> The fact that we have a lens in our eyeball is that exacting evidence why God is
>>> here.
>>
>>If God makes your brain retarded, does that mean your soul is retarded
>>as well?
>

>FUCK. I wish I'd said that. I wish I'd thought that.

You would have been even more embarrassed if you had.

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:16:39 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:

>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 23:02:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But you won't see the electricity. It's like God. You know both are there by
>>>>>> the surrounding effects they cause.
>>>>> What "surrounding effects" are there of your god?
>>>> Creation, love, see, smell, taste, touch, hear, etc.
>>
>>> No evidence any of those things come from a supernatural being, DORK.
>>> The senses, for example, are all biochemically-related.
>>
>> Yeah, like the lens in our eyeball.
>>
>
>Nothing particularly irreducibly complex about a lens in an eyeball.
>Ever make a pinhole camera?

Why do we have a lens in our eyeball?

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:52:50 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:

>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:34:55 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The important thing is that your claim, "Doesn't. Never did," has been
>>>>>> contradicted.
>>>> I rest my case.
>>
>>> If you ever get into legal trouble, someday, Duke, you should defend
>>> yourself and save thousands of dollars in attorney's fees.
>>
>>> DA: "I will now show the court that contrary to his plea of not guilty,
>>> Earl did in fact surf child porn as he has been charged. Because he's
>>> also doing it right now, on his laptop. Bailiff, please show the jury
>>> this is true."
>>> Earl: "I rest my case."
>>
>> With your silly example, that would still be the best response.

>I got the idea from a recent Swedish film.

I rest my case.

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:37:22 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 29, 1:21�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:29:00 -0700 (PDT), elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>> >On Apr 28, 10:30 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>> >> duke wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >So the god you preach has no love.
>> >> > Strawman. God never tortured or killed anyone.
>>
>> >> On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass, when
>> >> Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in
>> >> the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast..."
>>

>> >> --
>> >> Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
>
>;
>> >And then Moses told his soldiers to kill all pregnant Midianite women,
>> >those who might be preggers, all Midianite male children . .. think of
>> >what it was like to chop up women and children with a dull copper
>> >sword.

>> Moses is not God.

>In fact God was so outraged by this monstrous act
>committed in His name that He immediately banashed
>Moses from His presence and forbade the Hebrews ever to
>speak Moses' name again.
>Right, Dook?

Moses was saved by God. It had to do with his personal integrity.

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:53 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>God never ever hurt one person, but to those that acts against him, the fires of
>>hell truly await them.

>Hmmm. So all that Old Testament stuff was what? Lies? Just the
>biblical flood alone murdered everyone on the planet, and God did
>that. Never mind all the other examples in there....

No man has ever seen God. It was man pretending that he alone had God's
attention.

>And Jesus never came out and contradicted anything in it... so how do
>you feel about that, Dorkster?

Jesus showed us in example to love and obey God and love and serve our fellow
man in need.

>God in the New Testament just advocates a lot of murder. And promises
>hell if you don't comply with that kind of thing.
>Nice guy you're sucking up to.

Jesus, 2nd person of the holy Trinity, showed you to be wrong.

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:51:32 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> God in the New Testament just advocates a lot of murder. And promises
>>> hell if you don't comply with that kind of thing.
>>> Nice guy you're sucking up to.

>> This is where silly dukie will call you silly for not realizing that all
>> that is just allegory, completely forgetting all the times he said the
>> exact opposite. Does he really think nobody notices?

No NT man see's God calling for killing others. The NT man knows that God is
all love.

>Do you really think he notices?

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:51:31 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:

>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:30:01 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> So the god you preach has no love.
>>>> Strawman. God never tortured or killed anyone.
>>
>>> On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass, when
>>> Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in
>>> the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast..."
>>

>> That was a fore-telling of the hell fires in the NT for those that disobey God.
>> Now you see how that works.

>I get it. Pharaoh disobeyed God, so God killed a shitload of babies in
>Egypt.

The blood on the door crossarm saved so many. Kinda makes you think it to be a
prophetic statement about the coming blood of the Lamb of God on the cross,
doesn't it.

WOW!!!!!

Gosh, this is so much fun.

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:36:14 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 29, 1:20 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:30:01 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>> >duke wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us>  wrote:
>> >>> >So the god you preach has no love.
>> >> Strawman.  God never tortured or killed anyone.
>;
>> >On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass, when
>> >Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in
>> >the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast..."
>
>;
>> That was a fore-telling of the hell fires in the NT for those that disobey God.
>> Now you see how that works.
>

>It's Dook! for one-of-a-kind, hand-crafted, American
>rustic, completely original theology. For those times
>when twenty centuries of traditional Catholic theology
>simply doesn't do the trick.

Didn't you know that the parting of the waters for moses thus saving the Jews is
prophetic language of water baptism saving humankind after the cross?

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:56 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>The easiest example is of course the murder of his own son.
>>>No? You going to blame this on the Romans or the Jews? Hmmm. Seems
>>>that God had premeditation, right? Because he is omniscient....
>>No.
>God's not omniscient? But that's one of the central pillars of faith.

No, God didn't murder his own son. Jesus is God become man.

>Let me get this right. He tortures himself by crucifixion, and then
>allows himself to get murdered.... but it's really not murder because
>he is omnipotent and he knows he's going to resurrect himself.

No.

>Explain it to me better, please.

Done.

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:13:50 -0700 (PDT), elizabeth <elizabet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Wait just a minute there.
>If Jesus hadn't died he couldn't rise from the dead, and there would
>be no religion named after him.

Patterned, not named.

[duke]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:50:09 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:28:17 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:30:01 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>>> wrote in alt.atheism:

>>>
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the god you preach has no love.
>>>>> Strawman. God never tortured or killed anyone.
>>>> On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass, when
>>>> Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in
>>>> the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast..."

>>> But Duke is telling us that this never happened. Duke believes his
>>> version of his religion, but he is not delusional enough to accept the
>>> nonsense found in the Bible.
>>

>> God never ever hurt one person, but to those that acts against him, the fires of
>> hell truly await them.
>

>And what did all those babies and calves in Egypt do against God?

All the animals on the ark were saved. Something was different.

[duke]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 23:51:37 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>The grik just buried his head in the sand.
>>>>>Dork, how is it burying my head in the sand when I ask you for the
>>>>>mechanics?

>>>>Incarnation.

>>>Wait, what? "Incarnation"? You gave a one-word answer to a question
>>>about mechanics?

>>Your natural intelligence would have easily filled in the gaps. Now you know
>>where you stand.

>And yet here you were calling me a dumbass, and stupid... and now
>you're giving me credit for natural intelligence.

Which is minimal.

>There are no gaps, by the way. Incarnation is a single word without
>gaps to fill in. You can't use a single word as an explanation. It's
>just not enough, Dork.

Wow, what a numbuts you are.

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:50:09 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>> And what did all those babies and calves in Egypt do against God?
>
> All the animals on the ark were saved. Something was different.

They won the lottery. In the Exodus case, maybe some cows wandered over
the border into Gaza and weren't whacked by God. But in any event, with
both the flood and the Pharaonic plagues, there was a lot of collateral
damage for a supposedly divine being.

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
>
> Didn't you know that the parting of the waters for moses thus saving the Jews is
> prophetic language of water baptism saving humankind after the cross?

And the bears mauling 42 young lads who made fun of the prophet Elisha's
bald head was prophetic language of what Catholic priests do in their
bathhouses.

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:44:28 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> The fact that we have a lens in our eyeball is that exacting evidence why God is
>>> here.
>> If God makes your brain retarded, does that mean your soul is retarded
>> as well?
>
> No. Your soul is not brain-sensative.

Then you could be a fricken genius in the afterworld.

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
>
> Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
> blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.

Then why do you deride Mr. Obama's complexion by calling him Buckwheat?

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> our surroundings.
>
>> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>> physical effects.
>
> But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>

You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:46:04 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"Daniel Baumgarten" <db...@sdf.org> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:9bthait...@ma.sdf.org...
>> Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I'm well aware of the God became man theory. However, I'd like for you
>>> to explain the mechanics of that, please.
>>
>> There are no mechanics to the thing. We draw a logical distinction
>> between the person of the Son and the two natures, divine and human, in
>> the one person. Because the distinction works on a logical level, we
>> have a coherent belief;
>
>It is not in the least a coherent belief. It is totally irrational, an
>obvious logical contradiction akin to square circles.
>
>
>but the cause of the distinction is totally
>> beyond human understanding. You either accept it or you don't. You
>> don't. I believe that settles the question.
>
>One can say that one believes in square circles, but, because such a thing
>cannot be conceived or demonstrated, your statement of belief is just
>meaningless words.

Nicely put!

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>They didn't.
>
>Strawman.

You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
you look stupid.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[�RLMeasures]

In article <nfcvn89rh2ilpsm6r...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
<seqk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> You can't see either one.
>
> >So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
> >available human sense.
> >You can feel electricity. You may trust me on this.
>
> Yep, but you can't see it.
>
> >(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
> >agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
> >His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
> >that cost insurance companies trillions every
> >year)
>
> Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
> blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>
> All these clearly show the effects for the presence of our almighty God.
>

� Who's idea was the appendix?

[�RLMeasures]

In article <tOWdnWSDbfXVWOLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> duke wrote:
> >
> > Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
> > blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>
> Then why do you deride Mr. Obama's complexion by calling him Buckwheat?

� Massa Duke he don't much like niggers that's uppity. .

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:45:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:55:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>You wanted a new thread. Go ahead and start one.
>>>>I've started plenty. You keep responding. It's your turn, Dork. Come
>>>>up with something to talk about instead of hijacking other threads.
>>>>You can do it!
>>>But I won't, at least not for you because you always want others to cater to
>>>you, grik..
>>Right. How exactly is asking you for evidence getting you to cater to
>>me?
>
>You want a new thread. Go for it.

Evasion noted. You're too lazy to do any meaningful work.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:58:39 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>our surroundings.
>
>>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>physical effects.
>
>But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..

As NBL said... you don't need vision to confirm the presence of
electricity as a real phenomenon. You can feel it as a charge.

Feeling an idea like God is impossible.

Electricity is not an idea, Dorkster. It's verifiable by simple and
objective means. Your original point was "Prove electricity", not
"Prove whether you can see electricity".

Just give it up already...

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:02:17 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:03:24 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
>><seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>>>On Apr 29, 1:56�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> >>Right, just like God is obvious by the effects on our surroundings.
>>>
>>>;
>>>> >Not at all in the same way, Dork. Being able to touch physical
>>>> >evidence of electricity working does not have a parallel with anything
>>>> >the sky pixie is rumored to have created.
>>>
>>>;

>>>> You can't see either one.
>>>
>>>So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
>>>available human sense.
>>>
>>>You can feel electricity. You may trust me on this.
>>>
>>>

>>>NBL

>>>
>>>(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
>>>agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
>>>His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
>>>that cost insurance companies trillions every
>>>year)
>

>>C'mon NBL... you GAVE him more ammunition and he didn't even teeheehee
>>it. How sad is that?
>
>nbl is many steps more intelligent than you are.

You're absolutely right about that. He doesn't bother to debate you on
anything because you've demonstrated your stupidity to him enough
times.

He's also light-years beyond you.

Me, I'm just getting started and I haven't been exposed to enough of
your malignant dorkiness yet.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[�RLMeasures]

In article <tOWdnWeDbfUZWOLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> duke wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
> > <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > our surroundings.
> >
> >> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
> >> physical effects.
> >
> > But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
> >
>
> You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
> sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.

��� ... with a minus sign on it.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:58:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <517f77fc$0$56786$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:hlwdjsd2-69C24E...@news.giganews.com...
>> > In article <sd0un8tl36i944b01...@4ax.com>,

>> > Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >

>> >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:22:17 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:28:17 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>

>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >

>> >> >>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:30:01 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>> >> >>wrote in alt.atheism:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>duke wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>> >> >>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> >So the god you preach has no love.
>> >> >>>> Strawman. God never tortured or killed anyone.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass,
>> >> >>>when
>> >> >>>Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn
>> >> >>>in
>> >> >>>the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of
>> >> >>>beast..."
>> >> >>
>> >> >>But Duke is telling us that this never happened. Duke believes his
>> >> >>version of his religion, but he is not delusional enough to accept the
>> >> >>nonsense found in the Bible.
>> >> >
>> >> >God never ever hurt one person, but to those that acts against him, the
>> >> >fires of
>> >> >hell truly await them.
>> >> >
>> >>

>> >> Hmmm. So all that Old Testament stuff was what? Lies? Just the
>> >> biblical flood alone murdered everyone on the planet, and God did
>> >> that. Never mind all the other examples in there....
>> >>

>> >> And Jesus never came out and contradicted anything in it... so how do
>> >> you feel about that, Dorkster?
>> >>

>> >> God in the New Testament just advocates a lot of murder. And promises
>> >> hell if you don't comply with that kind of thing.
>> >>
>> >> Nice guy you're sucking up to.
>> >
>> >
>> > This is where silly dukie will call you silly for not realizing that all
>> > that is just allegory, completely forgetting all the times he said the
>> > exact opposite. Does he really think nobody notices?
>>
>>

>> Do you really think he notices?
>

>Probably not.
>
>I'll never learn to live with that kind of cognitive dissonance.
>
>Do you think the Red Queen is dukie's role model?

No. In my mental model, the Red Queen is admirably played by someone
believable like Charlize Theron in custom red leather by Gaultier.

Dork's role model is obviously Humpty Dumpty...

" When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it
means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less. The question
is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different
things. The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master,
thats all."

Lewis Carroll

[•RLMeasures]

In article <67dvn8luhtme00c84...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:51:32 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> God in the New Testament just advocates a lot of murder. And promises
> >>> hell if you don't comply with that kind of thing.
> >>> Nice guy you're sucking up to.
>
> >> This is where silly dukie will call you silly for not realizing that all
> >> that is just allegory, completely forgetting all the times he said the
> >> exact opposite. Does he really think nobody notices?
>
> No NT man see's God calling for killing others. The NT man knows that God is
> all love.
>

• Only for those who show proper respect to holy men. Everybody else
goes Sraight to Hell for eternal torture at the hands of ravenous
succubi. Alas, poor devils.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <b9dvn8djluvqqpmmt...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:51:31 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:30:01 -0700, linuxgal
<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> duke wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free
Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> So the god you preach has no love.
> >>>> Strawman. God never tortured or killed anyone.
> >>
> >>> On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass, when
> >>> Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in
> >>> the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of
beast..."
> >>
> >> That was a fore-telling of the hell fires in the NT for those that
disobey God.
> >> Now you see how that works.
>
> >I get it. Pharaoh disobeyed God, so God killed a shitload of babies in
> >Egypt.
>
> The blood on the door crossarm saved so many.

• If we believe Jewish storytellers.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <7edvn8pmrip719el8...@4ax.com>, duke

• Now there's a new one.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:03:27 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:48:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>The fact that we have a lens in our eyeball is that exacting evidence why God is
>>>here.
>

>>There is no evidence of supernatural design in the human eyeball. It
>>is in fact evidence of exceptionally bad design, so if that's your
>>proof, it's spectacularly bad.
>
>Then why do we have a lens in our eyeball?

Because we've adapted around it, stupid.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[linuxgal]

Dreamer In Colore wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:44:28 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:

>
>> duke wrote:
>>> The fact that we have a lens in our eyeball is that exacting evidence why God is
>>> here.

>> If God makes your brain retarded, does that mean your soul is retarded
>> as well?
>

> FUCK. I wish I'd said that. I wish I'd thought that.
>
> For the record... your husband is a lucky guy.

I don't have any money to give you in my purse right now, but thanks anyway!

[linuxgal]

As if we didn't already know.

[thomas p.]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:hlwdjsd2-A38B51...@news.giganews.com...

> In article <517f77fc$0$56786$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:hlwdjsd2-69C24E...@news.giganews.com...
>> > In article <sd0un8tl36i944b01...@4ax.com>,
>> > Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:22:17 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>

>> >> >On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:28:17 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >

>> >> >>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:30:01 -0700, linuxgal

>> >> >><linu...@cleanposts.com>
>> >> >>wrote in alt.atheism:

>> >> >>
>> >> >>>duke wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free
>> >> >>>> Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>> >> >>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> >So the god you preach has no love.
>> >> >>>> Strawman. God never tortured or killed anyone.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass,
>> >> >>>when
>> >> >>>Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the
>> >> >>>firstborn
>> >> >>>in
>> >> >>>the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of
>> >> >>>beast..."
>> >> >>

>> >> >>But Duke is telling us that this never happened. Duke believes his
>> >> >>version of his religion, but he is not delusional enough to accept
>> >> >>the
>> >> >>nonsense found in the Bible.
>> >> >
>> >> >God never ever hurt one person, but to those that acts against him,
>> >> >the
>> >> >fires of
>> >> >hell truly await them.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Hmmm. So all that Old Testament stuff was what? Lies? Just the
>> >> biblical flood alone murdered everyone on the planet, and God did
>> >> that. Never mind all the other examples in there....
>> >>
>> >> And Jesus never came out and contradicted anything in it... so how do
>> >> you feel about that, Dorkster?
>> >>

>> >> God in the New Testament just advocates a lot of murder. And promises
>> >> hell if you don't comply with that kind of thing.
>> >>
>> >> Nice guy you're sucking up to.
>> >
>> >
>> > This is where silly dukie will call you silly for not realizing that
>> > all
>> > that is just allegory, completely forgetting all the times he said the
>> > exact opposite. Does he really think nobody notices?
>>
>>

>> Do you really think he notices?
>
> Probably not.
>
> I'll never learn to live with that kind of cognitive dissonance.
>
> Do you think the Red Queen is dukie's role model?

Too much of a challenge. The Red Queen was far too entertaining.

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[Dreamer In Colore]

Thank you. I haven't laughed this hard since "Prove electricity".

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:10:54 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:53 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>God never ever hurt one person, but to those that acts against him, the fires of
>>>hell truly await them.
>
>>Hmmm. So all that Old Testament stuff was what? Lies? Just the
>>biblical flood alone murdered everyone on the planet, and God did
>>that. Never mind all the other examples in there....
>

>No man has ever seen God. It was man pretending that he alone had God's
>attention.
>

And yet you've talked to him. Directly, no less. So you've been
pretending all this time. Can't say as I'm surprised, liar.

>>And Jesus never came out and contradicted anything in it... so how do
>>you feel about that, Dorkster?
>

>Jesus showed us in example to love and obey God and love and serve our fellow
>man in need.
>

I see. Nice evasion, Dorkster. Jesus also showed us in example that
his crucifixion was irrelevant if he was a god.

>>God in the New Testament just advocates a lot of murder. And promises
>>hell if you don't comply with that kind of thing.
>>Nice guy you're sucking up to.
>

>Jesus, 2nd person of the holy Trinity, showed you to be wrong.

God, 1st person of the weird triumvirate, shows you to be chock full
of wishful thinking.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:17:51 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:56 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>The easiest example is of course the murder of his own son.
>>>>No? You going to blame this on the Romans or the Jews? Hmmm. Seems
>>>>that God had premeditation, right? Because he is omniscient....
>>>No.
>>God's not omniscient? But that's one of the central pillars of faith.
>
>No, God didn't murder his own son. Jesus is God become man.
>

So God became human, had himself killed, and then ghosted himself back
into existence whereupon he went to heaven to resume his .... well,
whatever he does.

Right.

Proof of any of this claptrap?

>>Let me get this right. He tortures himself by crucifixion, and then
>>allows himself to get murdered.... but it's really not murder because
>>he is omnipotent and he knows he's going to resurrect himself.
>
>No.
>
>>Explain it to me better, please.
>
>Done.

Errrm... in between the "Explain it to me better, please" and
"Done"... there is nothing except a right-angled brace.

Oh I get it. The explanation is as invisible as the sky pixie.

And just as relevant! Kudos to you, Dorkster. You're the veritable
Prince of Lies himself. You should be honored, though... because God
created him too.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:30:52 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 23:51:37 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>The grik just buried his head in the sand.
>>>>>>Dork, how is it burying my head in the sand when I ask you for the
>>>>>>mechanics?
>
>>>>>Incarnation.
>
>>>>Wait, what? "Incarnation"? You gave a one-word answer to a question
>>>>about mechanics?
>
>>>Your natural intelligence would have easily filled in the gaps. Now you know
>>>where you stand.
>
>>And yet here you were calling me a dumbass, and stupid... and now
>>you're giving me credit for natural intelligence.
>
>Which is minimal.
>
>>There are no gaps, by the way. Incarnation is a single word without
>>gaps to fill in. You can't use a single word as an explanation. It's
>>just not enough, Dork.
>
>Wow, what a numbuts you are.
>

Teeheehee... when all explanations become impossible for you... behold
my magnificent testicularia!

OK, fine. I accept that you're obsessed with my sex. Really, though...
I'm spoken for.

So do you think you can go for a better insult next time? You're very
low on the creativity scale so far. Do better. I know it's difficult
for you, what with a bible shoved so far up your hindquarters that
there's a "T" in your right pupil and an "E" in your left, and the
"H" buried right behind your eyebrows, but try.

Just to see if you can.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>They didn't.
>
>Strawman.

Not even close.

Neither does your calling it a strawman change the fact that nobody
except Catholic partisans think the JJ study is credible.

And, they don't think it's credible for the reasons I mentioned.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:12:29 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>
>>>>>>You're the one who said she was sin free, Dook.
>>>>>Yep, he always was, she was at the hands of Jesus.
>>>>John Paul II says you're full of shit.
>>>Uh, nooooo.
>>Uh, yea.
>
>Show me where JPII said I'm wrong.

his truth asserts "that Mary, free from original sin, was also
preserved from all actual sin and that this initial holiness was
granted to her in order to fill her entire life"

>
>>>She was born of mankind. Her son Jesus, 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, removed
>>>or blocked it at her own conception. As the ARK that was to carry the Lord
>>>Jesus for 9 months, it's appropriate that she was pure.
>
>>Oh...
>>Changing your story, eh Dook.
>
>No, just showing you that you're wrong.

No, you weren't.

>
>>First you were saying with utter certainty that original sin was
>>removed.
>>Now it's "blocked".
>
>Now that's a weird comment.

Not at all.

It's the difference between having something which is removed and
never having something at all.

That you Catholics can't agree on what's what just shows that you're
making shit up as you go along.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <b9pvn896up2kmbe6l...@4ax.com>,

��� ur welcone but he's a natural.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:14:51 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:51:31 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:

>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:30:01 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> duke wrote:

>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> So the god you preach has no love.
>>>>> Strawman. God never tortured or killed anyone.
>>>
>>>> On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass, when
>>>> Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in
>>>> the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast..."
>>>

>>> That was a fore-telling of the hell fires in the NT for those that disobey God.
>>> Now you see how that works.
>

>>I get it. Pharaoh disobeyed God, so God killed a shitload of babies in
>>Egypt.
>

>The blood on the door crossarm saved so many. Kinda makes you think it to be a

>prophetic statement about the coming blood of the Lamb of God on the cross,
>doesn't it.

Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.


...

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:19:40 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:50:09 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:

>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:28:17 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:30:01 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>

>>>> wrote in alt.atheism:

>>>>
>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the god you preach has no love.
>>>>>> Strawman. God never tortured or killed anyone.
>>>>> On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass, when
>>>>> Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in
>>>>> the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast..."

>>>> But Duke is telling us that this never happened. Duke believes his
>>>> version of his religion, but he is not delusional enough to accept the
>>>> nonsense found in the Bible.
>>>

>>> God never ever hurt one person, but to those that acts against him, the fires of
>>> hell truly await them.
>>

>>And what did all those babies and calves in Egypt do against God?
>
>All the animals on the ark were saved. Something was different.

Since there was no ark, the non-difference was that the whole story is
fiction, just like everything else in Genesis. Still, the god found in
Genesis is an untrustworthy bastard, worthy of nothing but contempt for
his evil ways.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <neh0o814gpojlonif...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

• Indeed. This God has a short fuse and he has no sense of justice.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5dcvn897q72e4mv80...@4ax.com>,

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> >>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
> >Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
> >They didn't.
>
> Strawman.

Poor poor dukie. Still not understanding what a strawman actually is so
still making a fool of himself.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[linuxgal]

�RLMeasures wrote:

> � damn right. It seems as if the Christian God has all of mankind's
> worst attributes.

Christians say that God is not the author of confusion. Can you say
Tower of Babel?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <nfcvn89rh2ilpsm6r...@4ax.com>,
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
> <seqk...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >> You can't see either one.
>
> >So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
> >available human sense.
> >You can feel electricity. You may trust me on this.
>

> Yep, but you can't see it.

So what?

> >(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
> >agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
> >His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
> >that cost insurance companies trillions every
> >year)
>

> Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
> blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>

> All these clearly show the effects for the presence of our almighty God.

And how, precisely, do they do that? Your assertion is meaningless
without evidence.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <eecvn85s1f1qoqbjl...@4ax.com>,
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> our surroundings.
>
> >And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
> >physical effects.
>
> But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..

So what?

[Daniel Baumgarten]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:

> Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
> that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
> forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
> every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.

Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.

[linuxgal]

Pharaoh desperately wanted to tell his ministers it was against his will
but the spell was so strong he couldn't do it.

[nature bats last]

On Apr 30, 5:02 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:03:24 -0400, Dreamer In Colore

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last

> ><seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Apr 29, 1:56 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> >>Right, just like God is obvious by the effects on our surroundings.
>
> >>;
> >>> >Not at all in the same way, Dork. Being able to touch physical
> >>> >evidence of electricity working does not have a parallel with anything
> >>> >the sky pixie is rumored to have created.
>
> >>;

> >>> You can't see either one.
>
> >>So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
> >>available human sense.
>
> >>You can feel electricity.  You may trust me on this.
>

;

> >>(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
> >>agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
> >>His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
> >>that cost insurance companies trillions every
> >>year)

;
> >C'mon NBL... you GAVE him more ammunition and he didn't even teeheehee
> >it. How sad is that?

;
> nbl is many steps more intelligent than you are.

Nope. Just more obscure.

In a deliberate linuxgal kind of way.

Or possibly not even that.


NBL


> >>NBL

[thomas p.]

"Daniel Baumgarten" <db...@sdf.org> skrev i meddelelsen
news:9btmwsf...@ma.sdf.org...

Do you think he asked that his heart be hardened so that he would not be
able to choose to let them go?

[nature bats last]

On Apr 30, 7:12 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:58:39 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> >On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
> ><dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >our surroundings.
>
> >>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
> >>physical effects.
>
> >But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>

;
> As NBL said... you don't need vision to confirm the presence of
> electricity as a real phenomenon. You can feel it as a charge.
;
> Feeling an idea like God is impossible.

Come to think of it, Dreamer...I can't see Dook either.


You?


NBL


.
>
> Electricity is not an idea, Dorkster. It's verifiable by simple and
> objective means. Your original point was "Prove electricity", not
> "Prove whether you can see electricity".
>
> Just give it up already...
>
> Cheers,
> Dreamer
> AA 2306

[nature bats last]

On Apr 30, 7:12 am, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article <tOWdnWeDbfUZWOLMnZ2dnUVZ_oadn...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
>
> <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> > duke wrote:
> > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
> > > <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > our surroundings.
>
> > >> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
> > >> physical effects.
;
> > > But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..

;

> > You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
> > sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.

;
> ... with a minus sign on it.

That was my first image too. And perhaps a smiley
face.


NBL

[nature bats last]

On Apr 30, 3:29 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:14:51 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in

> alt.atheism:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:51:31 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
> >>duke wrote:

> >>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:30:01 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> duke wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> So the god you preach has no love.
> >>>>> Strawman.  God never tortured or killed anyone.
>
> >>>> On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass, when
> >>>> Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in
> >>>> the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast..."
>
> >>> That was a fore-telling of the hell fires in the NT for those that disobey God.
> >>> Now you see how that works.
>
> >>I get it.  Pharaoh disobeyed God, so God killed a shitload of babies in
> >>Egypt.
>
> >The blood on the door crossarm saved so many.  Kinda makes you think it to be a
> >prophetic statement about the coming blood of the Lamb of God on the cross,
> >doesn't it.
>

;
> Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
> that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
> forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
> every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.

Dook is God's Own Honey Badger.

Honey Badger don't give a fuck.


NBL

[nature bats last]

On Apr 30, 5:08 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:37:22 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqkl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 29, 1:21 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:29:00 -0700 (PDT), elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:

> >> >On Apr 28, 10:30 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >> >> duke wrote:
> >> >> > On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >So the god you preach has no love.
> >> >> > Strawman. God never tortured or killed anyone.
>
> >> >> On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass, when
> >> >> Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in
> >> >> the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast..."
>

> >> >> --
> >> >> Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
>

> >;
;
> >> >And then Moses told his soldiers to kill all pregnant Midianite women,
> >> >those who might be preggers, all Midianite male children . .. think of
> >> >what it was like to chop up women and children with a dull copper
> >> >sword.

;
> >> Moses is not God.

;
> >In fact God was so outraged by this monstrous act
> >committed in His name that He immediately banashed
> >Moses from His presence and forbade the Hebrews ever to
> >speak Moses' name again.
> >Right, Dook?

;
> Moses was saved by God. It had to do with his personal integrity.

So, are you saying that although God was outraged by
Moses' ordering the slaughter of the Midianites, down
to the last toddler, He forgave Moses?

Or are you just dodging the entire issue; argumentum ab
non-sequitur?

[nature bats last]

On Apr 30, 5:16 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:36:14 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqkl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 29, 1:20 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:30:01 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >> >duke wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us>  wrote:
> >> >>> >So the god you preach has no love.
> >> >> Strawman.  God never tortured or killed anyone.

> >;
;

> >> That was a fore-telling of the hell fires in the NT for those that disobey God.
> >> Now you see how that works.

;
> >It's Dook! for one-of-a-kind, hand-crafted, American
> >rustic, completely original theology. For those times
> >when twenty centuries of traditional Catholic theology
> >simply doesn't do the trick.

;
> Didn't you know that the parting of the waters for moses thus saving the Jews is
> prophetic language of water baptism saving humankind after the cross?

Didn't you know what you just said had nothing at all
to do with your silly claim that the LORD slaughtering
all the firstborn infants of Egypt was "a fore-telling
of hell"?

Actually, I'm quite confident you did know that.

That's why you did it.

[nature bats last]

Seriously?


"Pharaoh quickly summoned Moses and Aaron and said,
I have sinned against the Lord your God and against
you.

Now forgive my sin once more and pray to the Lord
your God to take this deadly plague away from me.

Moses then left Pharaoh and prayed to the Lord. 19
And the Lord changed the wind to a very strong west
wind, which caught up the locusts and carried them
into the Red Sea. Not a locust was left anywhere in
Egypt.

But the Lord hardened Pharaohs heart, and he
would not let the Israelites go."


Pharaoh sees the light, begs forgiveness.. and then:

"But the Lord hardened Pharaohs heart, and he would
not let the Israelites go."


What in the world do you think that last is saying?

NBL

[Daniel Baumgarten]

So you agree that what Free Lunch is claiming about the Exodus narrative
is absurd. How about the notion that the Bible depicts a God who
"murdered" the first born children of Egypt? It's perhaps even sillier
than the idea that God compelled Pharaoh against his will to persecute
the Israelites. The Egyptians were, of course, fully complicit in the
slaughter of the children of the Israelites. They were even ordered to
turn their Israelite neighbors over to Pharaoh's men and to inform them
of any children who were being hidden. The story gives this as the
reason why Moses was put in a basket and sent down the river, eventually
to be discovered by Pharaoh's daughter and raised as an Egyptian. It
would be disngenuous to object, as you might, that the children of the
Egyptians were being punished undeservedly for the crimes of their
parents. Not only is this because no one bothers to criticize Pharaoh
for his act of mass infanticide, but only blames God; but as the maker
of all children, God has a right to un-make them that Pharaoh (or any
human) does not have. Furthermore, in asserting this right, God doesn't
distinguish between Egyptians and Israelites per se; if an Israelite
family were to disobey the commandment to observe the first Passover,
they would lose their first born like any Egyptian -- indeed, they would
*become* Egyptians by the very fact of their indifference to God.

To further object that this God does not exist is to completely miss the
point, since this whole exercise is being couched by Free Lunch as a
referendum on moral sophistication of the Israelite culture that, in his
opinion, fabricated these stories. The whole point of the story, neatly
summarized in the Canticle of Miriam so that even dense folk like you
and Free Lunch can grasp it, is that God is rightly honored above any
human being such as Pharaoh; that what is appropriate to God's authority
is not appropriate to that of any earthly king. The scripture *agrees*
that such things are evil when done by humans. IN SHORT, the story
condemns infanticide as such and threatens a proportionate penalty to
those who commit it. To say that the God of Israel is an evil character
in this story because he is guilty of infanticide himself, and therefore
that Abrahamic believers were and are infanticidal moral hypocrites, is
to deliberately misrepresent the text, not to mention a form of modern
blood libel. So we know who the real bigot in this discussion is, and
it isn't Duke.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

There's no question that Pharaoh was "able to choose" to let them go.
He chose not to, and this choice makes him hard of heart. Just because
God caused this choice, you want to claim that Pharaoh did not really
choose it. But this is a contradiction in terms; whatever is real, so
far as we theists are concerned, is real precisely *because* it is
caused by God. God gives existence to all our choices, our virtues and
vices, in the same way that he gives existence to gravity and
photosynthesis. That does not remove our responsibility for our
choices; the very essence of a choice is that the one who made it is
really responsible for it.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <gbkvn819reac82mjr...@4ax.com>,
Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:58:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <517f77fc$0$56786$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
> > "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >> news:hlwdjsd2-69C24E...@news.giganews.com...
> >> > In article <sd0un8tl36i944b01...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:22:17 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:28:17 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >

> >> >> >>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:30:01 -0700, linuxgal

> >> >> >><linu...@cleanposts.com>
> >> >> >>wrote in alt.atheism:

> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>duke wrote:
> >> >> >>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free
> >> >> >>>> Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> >> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> >So the god you preach has no love.
> >> >> >>>> Strawman. God never tortured or killed anyone.
> >> >> >>>

> >> >> >>>On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass,
> >> >> >>>when
> >> >> >>>Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn
> >> >> >>>in
> >> >> >>>the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of
> >> >> >>>beast..."
> >> >> >>

> >> >> >>But Duke is telling us that this never happened. Duke believes his
> >> >> >>version of his religion, but he is not delusional enough to accept
> >> >> >>the
> >> >> >>nonsense found in the Bible.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >God never ever hurt one person, but to those that acts against him,
> >> >> >the
> >> >> >fires of
> >> >> >hell truly await them.
> >> >> >
> >> >>

> >> >> Hmmm. So all that Old Testament stuff was what? Lies? Just the
> >> >> biblical flood alone murdered everyone on the planet, and God did
> >> >> that. Never mind all the other examples in there....
> >> >>

> >> >> And Jesus never came out and contradicted anything in it... so how do
> >> >> you feel about that, Dorkster?
> >> >>

> >> >> God in the New Testament just advocates a lot of murder. And promises
> >> >> hell if you don't comply with that kind of thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nice guy you're sucking up to.
> >> >
> >> >

> >> > This is where silly dukie will call you silly for not realizing that all
> >> > that is just allegory, completely forgetting all the times he said the
> >> > exact opposite. Does he really think nobody notices?
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you really think he notices?
> >
> >Probably not.
> >
> >I'll never learn to live with that kind of cognitive dissonance.
> >
> >Do you think the Red Queen is dukie's role model?
>
> No. In my mental model, the Red Queen is admirably played by someone
> believable like Charlize Theron in custom red leather by Gaultier.

She's a hot mama!

You should watch "Fashion Police"; she ends up on there a lot since
she's always looking spectacular at red carpet events.

> Dork's role model is obviously Humpty Dumpty...
>
> " When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it
> means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less. The question
> is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different
> things. The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master,
> thats all."
>
> Lewis Carroll

Okay, I agree. You are definitely correct.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <aduvn8t25eob4fn36...@4ax.com>,

ROTFLMAO.

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 30, 6:24 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:

That's because (obviously) you don't *wish* to. God hardening
Pharaoh's heart is *exactly* that, God stacking the deck against
Pharaoh's letting the Israelites go.

Or don't you read for comprehension?

--
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
--

[Daniel Baumgarten]

SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> writes:

> On Apr 30, 6:24 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>> > Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
>> > that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
>> > forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
>> > every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>>
>> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind?  My
>> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
>> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>
> That's because (obviously) you don't *wish* to. God hardening
> Pharaoh's heart is *exactly* that, God stacking the deck against
> Pharaoh's letting the Israelites go.

Well, the very same accusation could be levied at the accuser. Perhaps
you don't *wish* to read what the text actually says about God's effect
on the Pharaoh, but rather your preconceived notion of God as a kind of
arbitrary tyrant colors your interpretation.

Again, I will ask, where in the text is it said that God "forced"
Pharaoh not to change his mind -- that is to say, that it was not
Pharaoh's choice to change his mind?

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 30, 8:41 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:

So you're pushing moral relativism, then. Good to know.

<Spit>

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 30, 8:47 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:

> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > "Daniel Baumgarten" <db...@sdf.org> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:9btmwsf...@ma.sdf.org...
> >> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>
> >>> Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
> >>> that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
> >>> forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
> >>> every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>
> >> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind?  My
> >> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
> >> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>
> > Do you think he asked that his heart be hardened so that he would not be
> > able to choose to let them go?
>
> There's no question that Pharaoh was "able to choose" to let them go.
> He chose not to, and this choice makes him hard of heart.

*NO*, *God* hardened Pharaoh's heart. Do you not read for
comprehension?

 Just because
> God caused this choice, you want to claim that Pharaoh did not really
> choose it.

Bingo! Now you're getting warm. If a god make you choose one action
over another, then you no longer have free choice, do you?

> But this is a contradiction in terms; whatever is real, so
> far as we theists are concerned, is real precisely *because* it is
> caused by God.

Oh, horseshit. You're saying that whatever choices a man makes, he's
responsible for; but if a god forces him to make a particular choice,
it's still the man's fault. That's odious.

>  God gives existence to all our choices, our virtues and
> vices, in the same way that he gives existence to gravity and
> photosynthesis.  That does not remove our responsibility for our
> choices; the very essence of a choice is that the one who made it is
> really responsible for it.

Got any logical, objective, verifiable *evidence* - something else
besides bible quotes and rhetoric, you know, *data* - that this "God"
of yours *actually exists*?

Get back to us when you have. Until such a time, kind FOAD out of
alt.atheism.

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 30, 10:32 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:

> SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> writes:
> > On Apr 30, 6:24 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
> >> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
> >> > Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
> >> > that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
> >> > forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
> >> > every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>
> >> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind?  My
> >> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
> >> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>
> > That's because (obviously) you don't *wish* to.  God hardening
> > Pharaoh's heart is *exactly* that, God stacking the deck against
> > Pharaoh's letting the Israelites go.
>
> Well, the very same accusation could be levied at the accuser.  Perhaps
> you don't *wish* to read what the text actually says about God's effect
> on the Pharaoh, but rather your preconceived notion of God as a kind of
> arbitrary tyrant colors your interpretation.

Excuse me all to hell, sonnyboy, but I was brought up reading the
bible before I had the wit or gumption to challenge anything in it.
I've read the bible through, cover to cover, more times than *you*
have.

>
> Again, I will ask, where in the text is it said that God "forced"
> Pharaoh not to change his mind -- that is to say, that it was not
> Pharaoh's choice to change his mind?

In that he HARDENED PHARAOH'S HEART, nitwit. Can't you read for
comprehension? Or is the Elizabethan English throwing you off track?

If a person decides to make a particular choice, but an omnipotent,
omniscient deity pops in and cements the *other* choice in their
consciousness, that means that the god-critter has seriously
interfered with the free will of the person supposedly making the
choice.

You seem to think that free will is a discrete ability that functions
outside of the mind or of real events. Guess again.

Damn good thing that your God-thingy is nothing but a myth. Because
if it was real, it would be the epitome of evil.

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 30, 3:30 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:19:40 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in

> alt.atheism:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:50:09 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
> >>duke wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:28:17 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>

> >>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:30:01 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com>

> >>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>> duke wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> So the god you preach has no love.
> >>>>>> Strawman.  God never tortured or killed anyone.
> >>>>> On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass, when
> >>>>> Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in
> >>>>> the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast..."
> >>>> But Duke is telling us that this never happened. Duke believes his
> >>>> version of his religion, but he is not delusional enough to accept the
> >>>> nonsense found in the Bible.
>
> >>> God never ever hurt one person, but to those that acts against him, the fires of
> >>> hell truly await them.
>
> >>And what did all those babies and calves in Egypt do against God?
>
> >All the animals on the ark were saved.  Something was different.
>
> Since there was no ark, the non-difference was that the whole story is
> fiction, just like everything else in Genesis. Still, the god found in
> Genesis is an untrustworthy bastard, worthy of nothing but contempt for
> his evil ways.

Ditto the god of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles....

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 30, 10:08 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Cheers,
> Dreamer
> AA 2306

Seriously, duke doesn't have a bible shoved up his ass - he actually
knows next to nothing about the bible. What got shoved up duke's ass
at an unfortunate early age was the RCC catechism.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:33:07 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
<seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 30, 7:12�am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:58:39 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>> ><dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >our surroundings.
>>
>> >>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>> >>physical effects.
>>
>> >But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>>
>
>;
>> As NBL said... you don't need vision to confirm the presence of
>> electricity as a real phenomenon. You can feel it as a charge.
>;
>> Feeling an idea like God is impossible.
>
>Come to think of it, Dreamer...I can't see Dook either.
>
>
>You?

There's plenty of evidence for his existence, though. Sadly.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:07:05 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>They didn't.
>>
>>Strawman.
>
>You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
>you look stupid.

Sure I know what it means.

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:38:17 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>> Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>> They didn't.
>>> Strawman.
>>
>> You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
>> you look stupid.
>

>As if we didn't already know.

It works for me.

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:27:49 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>They didn't.
>>Strawman.

>Not even close.

>Neither does your calling it a strawman change the fact that nobody
>except Catholic partisans think the JJ study is credible.

It is. Heeheehee.

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:12:40 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:45:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:55:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>You wanted a new thread. Go ahead and start one.
>>>>>I've started plenty. You keep responding. It's your turn, Dork. Come
>>>>>up with something to talk about instead of hijacking other threads.
>>>>>You can do it!
>>>>But I won't, at least not for you because you always want others to cater to
>>>>you, grik..
>>>Right. How exactly is asking you for evidence getting you to cater to
>>>me?
>>
>>You want a new thread. Go for it.
>
>Evasion noted. You're too lazy to do any meaningful work.

You wanted a new thread. Go for it.

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:17:26 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:44:28 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> The fact that we have a lens in our eyeball is that exacting evidence why God is
>>>> here.
>>> If God makes your brain retarded, does that mean your soul is retarded
>>> as well?

>> No. Your soul is not brain-sensative.
>Then you could be a fricken genius in the afterworld.

Yet my eternal soul is no different than yours except what we make of it. Up,
up and awayyyyyyyyyyyyy.

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:23:03 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:03:27 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:48:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>The fact that we have a lens in our eyeball is that exacting evidence why God is
>>>>here.
>>

>>>There is no evidence of supernatural design in the human eyeball. It
>>>is in fact evidence of exceptionally bad design, so if that's your
>>>proof, it's spectacularly bad.
>>
>>Then why do we have a lens in our eyeball?
>
>Because we've adapted around it, stupid.

Thanks be to God.

Or were you suggesting that we had a lens and an eyeball grew around it, as you
clearly suggest?

Isn't it magnificent that God gave us an ability in the lens to focus light
waves for vision, reading, etc.

You still haven't told me why human eyes are separated as they are. You do
understand, of course, that it's another gift from God, don't you. Heeheehee.

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:18:17 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>>

>> Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
>> blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>
>Then why do you deride Mr. Obama's complexion by calling him Buckwheat?

He fits the image of a black clown.

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:37:17 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:11:22 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
>>In article <tOWdnWSDbfXVWOLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

>><linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
>>> > blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>>>
>>> Then why do you deride Mr. Obama's complexion by calling him Buckwheat?
>>

>>� Massa Duke he don't much like niggers that's uppity. .
>
>Thank you. I haven't laughed this hard since "Prove electricity".

And still waiting on a viable answer from you, to boot. You still can't see it.
And by your words, if you can't see it, it ain't.

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:19:17 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:

>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> our surroundings.
>>
>>> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>> physical effects.
>>
>> But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..

>You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
>sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.

Strawman.

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:34:09 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 30, 7:12�am, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>> In article <tOWdnWeDbfUZWOLMnZ2dnUVZ_oadn...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

>>
>> <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>> > duke wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>> > > <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > our surroundings.
>>
>> > >> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>> > >> physical effects.
>;
>> > > But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>
>;
>> > You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
>> > sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>

>;
>> ... with a minus sign on it.
>
>That was my first image too. And perhaps a smiley
>face.

What charge is a "smiley face"?
>NBL

[duke]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:34:53 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:12:29 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>>>You're the one who said she was sin free, Dook.
>>>>>>Yep, he always was, she was at the hands of Jesus.
>>>>>John Paul II says you're full of shit.
>>>>Uh, nooooo.
>>>Uh, yea.
>>
>>Show me where JPII said I'm wrong.

>his truth asserts "that Mary, free from original sin, was also
>preserved from all actual sin and that this initial holiness was
>granted to her in order to fill her entire life"

No sin or imperfection can be attributed to Mary
2. The Church has constantly regarded Mary as holy and free from all sin or
moral imperfection.

Sounds like you are still lying about what JPII said.

>>>>She was born of mankind. Her son Jesus, 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, removed
>>>>or blocked it at her own conception. As the ARK that was to carry the Lord
>>>>Jesus for 9 months, it's appropriate that she was pure.
>>No, just showing you that you're wrong.
>No, you weren't.

>>>First you were saying with utter certainty that original sin was
>>>removed.
>>>Now it's "blocked".

My words were "removed or blocked". Good grief but you lie a lot.

No sin or imperfection can be attributed to Mary
2. The Church has constantly regarded Mary as holy and free from all sin or
moral imperfection.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:55:26 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

This is why I keep telling y'all... Dionysus is the only way to go.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[nature bats last]

On Apr 30, 7:13 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:02:17 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:03:24 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
> ><dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
> >><seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Apr 29, 1:56 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>> >>Right, just like God is obvious by the effects on our surroundings.
>
> >>>;
> >>>> >Not at all in the same way, Dork. Being able to touch physical
> >>>> >evidence of electricity working does not have a parallel with anything
> >>>> >the sky pixie is rumored to have created.
>
> >>>;
> >>>> You can't see either one.
>
> >>>So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
> >>>available human sense.
>
> >>>You can feel electricity.  You may trust me on this.
>
> >>>NBL
>
> >>>(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
> >>>agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
> >>>His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
> >>>that cost insurance companies trillions every
> >>>year)
>
> >>C'mon NBL... you GAVE him more ammunition and he didn't even teeheehee
> >>it. How sad is that?
>
> >nbl is many steps more intelligent than you are.
>
> You're absolutely right about that. He doesn't bother to debate you on
> anything because you've demonstrated your stupidity to him enough
> times.
>
> He's also light-years beyond you.
>
;
> Me, I'm just getting started and I haven't been exposed to enough of
> your malignant dorkiness yet.

"Malignant dorkiness"! I love the internal tension in
that phrase. Sort of like "calculated cluelessness" or
... or ... or like some other one.

NBL


> Cheers,
> Dreamer
> AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:57:00 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

Yes, but I'm willing to humor it in the pursuit of strawmen and cheese
and jalapenos.

Seriously? There is no seriously with Duke. He doesn't take his own
pronouncements about love seriously at all... so everything else
smells vaguely of rot.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Daniel Baumgarten]

SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> writes:

> So you're pushing moral relativism, then. Good to know.

In what respect am I pushing moral relativism? If you mean that I'm
pushing relativism because God holds Egyptians and Israelites to the
same standard, then that's the opposite of moral relativism. If you are
worried that God is being held to a different standard than the
Israelites and Egyptians, well, duh. But nobody (up til now) has ever
been myopic enough to confuse the notion of a cosmic hierarchy with
moral relativism.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> writes:

>> Just because God caused this choice, you want to claim that Pharaoh
>> did not really choose it.
>
> Bingo! Now you're getting warm. If a god make you choose one action
> over another, then you no longer have free choice, do you?
>
>> But this is a contradiction in terms; whatever is real, so
>> far as we theists are concerned, is real precisely *because* it is
>> caused by God.
>
> Oh, horseshit. You're saying that whatever choices a man makes, he's
> responsible for; but if a god forces him to make a particular choice,
> it's still the man's fault. That's odious.

You're merely begging the question of God's forcing Pharaoh to do
anything. If it's so clear to you that he did so, why don't you kindly
present the case for it? "Oh, horseshit" and "That's odious" don't make
for convincing arguments.

>>  God gives existence to all our choices, our virtues and
>> vices, in the same way that he gives existence to gravity and
>> photosynthesis.  That does not remove our responsibility for our
>> choices; the very essence of a choice is that the one who made it is
>> really responsible for it.
>
> Got any logical, objective, verifiable *evidence* - something else
> besides bible quotes and rhetoric, you know, *data* - that this "God"
> of yours *actually exists*?

This is beside the point, and you are trying to change the subject.
Again, so far as believers in God are concerned, I have accurately
described God. But since you apparently don't believe in God, I'm
amused that you still think you are in a position to tell me that he's
totally evil, and that I ought to accept your appraisal because "Oh
horseshit" and "FOAD."

> Get back to us when you have. Until such a time, kind FOAD out of
> alt.atheism.

umad? I think she's mad.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> writes:

> On Apr 30, 10:32 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
>> SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> writes:
>> > On Apr 30, 6:24 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
>> >> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>> >> > Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
>> >> > that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
>> >> > forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
>> >> > every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>>
>> >> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind?  My
>> >> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
>> >> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>>
>> > That's because (obviously) you don't *wish* to.  God hardening
>> > Pharaoh's heart is *exactly* that, God stacking the deck against
>> > Pharaoh's letting the Israelites go.
>>
>> Well, the very same accusation could be levied at the accuser.  Perhaps
>> you don't *wish* to read what the text actually says about God's effect
>> on the Pharaoh, but rather your preconceived notion of God as a kind of
>> arbitrary tyrant colors your interpretation.
>
> Excuse me all to hell, sonnyboy, but I was brought up reading the
> bible before I had the wit or gumption to challenge anything in it.
> I've read the bible through, cover to cover, more times than *you*
> have.

So what?

>> Again, I will ask, where in the text is it said that God "forced"
>> Pharaoh not to change his mind -- that is to say, that it was not
>> Pharaoh's choice to change his mind?
>
> In that he HARDENED PHARAOH'S HEART, nitwit. Can't you read for
> comprehension? Or is the Elizabethan English throwing you off track?
>
> If a person decides to make a particular choice, but an omnipotent,
> omniscient deity pops in and cements the *other* choice in their
> consciousness, that means that the god-critter has seriously
> interfered with the free will of the person supposedly making the
> choice.

The text does not have Pharaoh considering one choice, then God "popping
in" and "cementing" the other one against Pharaoh's will. It has God
hardening Pharaoh's heart, i.e. causing him to make the stubborn,
foolhardy choice. There is no evidence anywhere in the Bible that God
is this entity that is normally withdrawn from the world, then "pops in"
and interferes with everything when he feels like it. But there is tons
of evidence that in the opinions of the various authors, he is normally
present, creating and sustaining everything that happens. That is why
the absence of God is an occasion for lamentation, not merely business
as usual. As an atheist, you come with different assumptions about
divine immanence; but they have no place in the mind of the author of
Exodus.

> You seem to think that free will is a discrete ability that functions
> outside of the mind or of real events. Guess again.

Quite the opposite. If Pharaoh does not change his mind about letting
the Israelites go, then it can only be in virtue of his free will that
he does not let them go.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:10:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:27:49 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>>They didn't.
>>>Strawman.
>>Not even close.
>
>>Neither does your calling it a strawman change the fact that nobody
>>except Catholic partisans think the JJ study is credible.
>
>It is. Heeheehee.

Not even close.

Neither does your calling it a strawman change the fact that nobody
except Catholic partisans think the JJ study is credible.

And, they don't think it's credible for the reasons I mentioned.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <Ta6dnURXupV2-R3M...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> �RLMeasures wrote:
>
> > � damn right. It seems as if the Christian God has all of mankind's
> > worst attributes.
>
> Christians say that God is not the author of confusion. Can you say
> Tower of Babel?

� ... which obviously never was because masonry structures are limited in
height - and especially so with bitumen mortar.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:28:29 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:34:53 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:12:29 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>You're the one who said she was sin free, Dook.
>>>>>>>Yep, he always was, she was at the hands of Jesus.
>>>>>>John Paul II says you're full of shit.
>>>>>Uh, nooooo.
>>>>Uh, yea.
>>>
>>>Show me where JPII said I'm wrong.
>
>>his truth asserts "that Mary, free from original sin, was also
>>preserved from all actual sin and that this initial holiness was
>>granted to her in order to fill her entire life"
>
>No sin or imperfection can be attributed to Mary
>2. The Church has constantly regarded Mary as holy and free from all sin or
>moral imperfection.

Yep.

Just as I said.

You, on the other hand, claimed Mary's sin was -removed-.

>Sounds like you are still lying about what JPII said.

Not to anyone with a brain, Dook.

Really, Dook...

Try and keep up.

>>>>>She was born of mankind. Her son Jesus, 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, removed
>>>>>or blocked it at her own conception. As the ARK that was to carry the Lord
>>>>>Jesus for 9 months, it's appropriate that she was pure.
>>>No, just showing you that you're wrong.
>>No, you weren't.
>
>>>>First you were saying with utter certainty that original sin was
>>>>removed.
>>>>Now it's "blocked".
>
>My words were "removed or blocked". Good grief but you lie a lot.

You're a dirty, filthy liar, Dook.

"Mary was sin free because Jesus removed her sin, and at her own
conception, no less." you wrote.

Nothing about -blocked- there, Dook.

You rightards really shouldn't lie about what you wrote just a few
posts up thread.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.



>