God is responsible for the death of Jesus
Truth Hunter
STATEMENT:
o God killed Jesus.
o That's right: God is the *ONLY* one responsible for Jesus' death.
---
CHRISTIAN FACTS:
o God is all-powerful.
o God knows everything. Everything that has happened, everything
that will happen.
---
EXTRAPOLATION:
o God knew that if he put his son here his son would be killed.
o Since God knew this, he is an accessory to the crime.
Suppose you have a child, or a "lamb", and you put it out in
your fields - where you *know* the wolves will kill it. Who is
responsible for its death: the wolves, or you?
The wolves were acting as you *knew* they would. They did *just*
what you expected them to do. It's *your* fault the child died.
Bumper Sticker
DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation froÂm his own
wrath! (Author unknown)
One God, father-son-ghost?
Holy Trinity "Me, Myself, and I"
Triune god: "Buy one god, get two free"
There is no copyright to this post or its contents anything can be
taken from this post without permission.
Uncle Vic
@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
> God is responsible for the death of Jesus
Like Lord Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry Potter's
parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters. They're not
real. Talking about them as if they are is delusional.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Member: Intensional misspellingg club.
Denis Loubet
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns981E5EFF...@216.196.97.136...
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Truth Hunter (hunter1234222
> @yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
>> God is responsible for the death of Jesus
>
> Like Lord Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry Potter's
> parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters. They're not
> real. Talking about them as if they are is delusional.
But your first sentence talks about them as if they were real.
You did it to make a point. I suspect Truth Hunter did the same.
Talking about fictional characters as if they're real is fine.
BELIEVEING they're real is delusional.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
drahcir
Uncle Vic wrote:
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Truth Hunter (hunter1234222
> @yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> > God is responsible for the death of Jesus
>
> Like Lord Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry Potter's
> parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters.
I agree with you that they are not real. However, there are over a
billion people who believe they are. Poking holes in the mythology by
pointing out logical inconsistencies is a very effective way to make
some of those billion ask themselves questions. It in no way means that
the poster is delusional. You obviously aren't the sharpest tack in the
box because you think it does.
Christopher A. Lee
>
>Uncle Vic wrote:
>> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Truth Hunter (hunter1234222
>> @yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>>
>> > God is responsible for the death of Jesus
>>
>> Like Lord Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry Potter's
>> parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters.
>
>I agree with you that they are not real. However, there are over a
>billion people who believe they are. Poking holes in the mythology by
>pointing out logical inconsistencies is a very effective way to make
>some of those billion ask themselves questions. It in no way means that
>the poster is delusional. You obviously aren't the sharpest tack in the
>box because you think it does.
Nobody would "poke holes" in it if they didn't (a) rub it in our faces
and (b) insist it be taken seriously.
You're obviously not the sharpest tack in the box because you can't
grasp that.
duke
>God is responsible for the death of Jesus
>STATEMENT:
>o God killed Jesus.
>o That's right: God is the *ONLY* one responsible for Jesus' death.
Except that God became man in the person of Jesus. Now what?
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Truth Hunter (hunter1234222
>@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
>> God is responsible for the death of Jesus
>
>Like Lord Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry Potter's
>parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters. They're not
>real. Talking about them as if they are is delusional.
You are delusional, and in mortal danger, for thinking they are not real.
Uncle Vic
made the light shine upon us with this:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:20:24 -0500, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Truth Hunter
>>(hunter1234222 @yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>>
>>> God is responsible for the death of Jesus
>>
>>Like Lord Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry Potter's
>>parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters. They're
>>not real. Talking about them as if they are is delusional.
>
> You are delusional, and in mortal danger, for thinking they are not
> real.
>
Not outside of your delusions, puke.
Uncle Vic
(sue...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> Uncle Vic wrote:
>> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Truth Hunter
>> (hunter1234222 @yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>>
>> > God is responsible for the death of Jesus
>>
>> Like Lord Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry Potter's
>> parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters.
>
> I agree with you that they are not real. However, there are over a
> billion people who believe they are. Poking holes in the mythology by
> pointing out logical inconsistencies is a very effective way to make
> some of those billion ask themselves questions. It in no way means
> that the poster is delusional.
Talking about, believing in, and convincing others that storybook
characters are real is indeed delusional behavior.
> You obviously aren't the sharpest tack in the
> box because you think it does.
>
Thank you for your opinion.
drahcir
swallowed my first attempt.
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:20:24 -0500, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com>
wrote:
>Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Truth Hunter (hunter1234222
>@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
>> God is responsible for the death of Jesus
>
>Like Lord Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry Potter's
>parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters.
That is true, but there are well over a billion people who claim that
they believe they are real. Poking holes in the mythology by pointing
out inconsistencies is a much more effective mode of changing some of
those minds than simply saying "your god isn't real". That doesn't
make the hole-poker a believer, does it?
They're not
>real. Talking about them as if they are is delusional.
No, it's not. It's possibly effective in helping delusional people.
You're apparently just not bright enough to make the distinction.
Uncle Vic
(dlo...@io.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns981E5EFF...@216.196.97.136...
>> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Truth Hunter
>> (hunter1234222 @yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>>
>>> God is responsible for the death of Jesus
>>
>> Like Lord Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry Potter's
>> parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters. They're
>> not real. Talking about them as if they are is delusional.
>
> But your first sentence talks about them as if they were real.
>
> You did it to make a point. I suspect Truth Hunter did the same.
Truth Hunter obviously doesn't believe the Christian claptrap any more
than we do.
>
> Talking about fictional characters as if they're real is fine.
But talking about them as Duke does, as if we really have something to
fear, is delusional.
>
> BELIEVEING they're real is delusional.
>
Yeah, that too.
Denis Loubet
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Denis Loubet
> (dlo...@io.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
>>
>> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns981E5EFF...@216.196.97.136...
>>> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Truth Hunter
>>> (hunter1234222 @yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>>>
>>>> God is responsible for the death of Jesus
>>>
>>> Like Lord Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry Potter's
>>> parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters. They're
>>> not real. Talking about them as if they are is delusional.
>>
>> But your first sentence talks about them as if they were real.
>>
>> You did it to make a point. I suspect Truth Hunter did the same.
>
> Truth Hunter obviously doesn't believe the Christian claptrap any more
> than we do.
I understand that.
>> Talking about fictional characters as if they're real is fine.
>
> But talking about them as Duke does, as if we really have something to
> fear, is delusional.
Well, he talks about them like they're real because he BELIEVES they're
real, and is hence delusional! ;-)
>> BELIEVEING they're real is delusional.
>>
> Yeah, that too.
And when I try to comprehend all the time and effort and lives spent making
people adhere to the Christian delusion... Ugh!
Denis Loubet
"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155489904.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Uncle Vic wrote:
>> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Truth Hunter (hunter1234222
>> @yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>>
>> > God is responsible for the death of Jesus
>>
>> Like Lord Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry Potter's
>> parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters.
>
> I agree with you that they are not real. However, there are over a
> billion people who believe they are. Poking holes in the mythology by
> pointing out logical inconsistencies is a very effective way to make
> some of those billion ask themselves questions. It in no way means that
> the poster is delusional.
I agree.
It takes belief to be delusional.
Granting a premise for the sake of argument is NOT delusional.
Zadok
"duck" <> wrote in message
> >o God killed Jesus.
> >o That's right: God is the *ONLY* one responsible for Jesus' death.
>
> Except that God became man in the person of Jesus. Now what?
God is still in charge!!
It was God who made Jesus ride an ass and a colt in Jerusalem being
proclaimed King of the Jews, and thus piss off the Roman occupiers, who had
their own puppet King of the Jews.
Imagine if an Iraqi rode into Baghdad, claiming he was the King of Iraq.
The fucking americans would just blow him to hell.
Get it Duck. The occupiers would execute someone messing with their puppet
government!!
drahcir
appear to have swallowed my first attempts.
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:20:24 -0500, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com>
wrote:
>Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Truth Hunter (hunter1234222
>@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
>> God is responsible for the death of Jesus
>
>Like Lord Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry Potter's
>parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters.
That is true, but there are well over a billion people who claim that
they believe they are real. Poking holes in the mythology by pointing
out inconsistencies is a much more effective mode of changing some of
those minds than simply saying "your god isn't real". That doesn't
make the hole-poker a believer, does it?
They're not
>real. Talking about them as if they are is delusional.
No, it's not. It's possibly effective in helping delusional people.
duke
>
>"duck" <> wrote in message
>
>> >o God killed Jesus.
>> >o That's right: God is the *ONLY* one responsible for Jesus' death.
>> Except that God became man in the person of Jesus. Now what?
>God is still in charge!!
In charge of what?
>It was God who made Jesus ride an ass and a colt in Jerusalem being
>proclaimed King of the Jews, and thus piss off the Roman occupiers, who had
>their own puppet King of the Jews.
Jesus was God become man.
Lion Of Judah
believe in Jesus.
duke
wrote:
>Nah. God's responsible for giving Jesus eternal life, as well as for us who
>believe in Jesus.
?? Jesus is God become man. Jesus the man died on the cross.
Lucifer
And you became a jerk, rather a while ago in any educated guess. Now,
fuck off.
Bitsbucket
about? Yes, GOD did kill his son, Jesus, the lord in the flesh, to give
people like you a chance, and I stress the word chance, at immortal life, by
washing away your sins, and the reason I stress chance, is that if you don't
come to believe that Jesus died for your sins, then you will not go to
heaven. Why do people like you insist, that this is a fantasy? I really
don't get it. Why take the chance that you are right and a book that is 2K
years old is wrong?
I guess that you believe that when you die you are DEAD and gone, poof
that's it? You think that you are no better than a dumb animal? Why can you
reason and have free will then? Animals (can't do this) and are driven by
instincts, are you? are you telling me that you are an animal? No better
than a dog?
Scientific study can not explain alot of things, so because you can't
measure it with a multimeter, you don't believe it? You have no soul because
you can't see it or touch it? You can't touch the wind either, does that
mean it does not exist? Yes I agree you can measure it's speed, but that is
not the whole idea, now is it?
I will pray for you, I have no hard feelings for you, I just pity you,
calling yourself Lucifer, does that mean you are a Satanist? You believe in
evil but not good?
I really do not understand you atheist folk, please explain to me, (convert
me?) Do NOT be an ass about this, I am truly curious, why is it you do not
believe in GOD, and afterlife, or anything.....and by the way if you are
truly an atheist then you would not call yourself Lucifer, as that is bound
by the Christian faith. So are you an atheist or a Satanist?
May God have mercy on your soul.....I hpe he does,as I know where I will go
when I die, and you won't be there unless you let someone explain it to you,
and you come to know Christ. Why would you NOT believe? I just don't get
it.......
God Bless,
"Lucifer" <wyrd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155513872.8...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> ?? Jesus is God become man. Jesus the man died on the cross.
>
> And you became a jerk, rather a while ago in any educated guess. Now,
> fuck off.
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0632-2, 08/10/2006
> Tested on: 8/13/2006 8:16:21 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
Lucifer
Why waste my words on him, he wouldn't understand most of them,
probably wouldn't read half of them. And anyway, you state something as
fact with no evidence. Support your wild claims. A book that is 2000
years old is most likely out of date, just look at the medicine of the
era.
I am not scared of hell, because there is no hell, I would rather focus
on living before I die, thank you very much. And after your foolish and
misinformed tirade you finish with "God Bless", if that is a blessing
i'd love to meet a curse from you.
And no, I am no better on any quantum level from an animal, but on the
other hand, there are graduations. I would say that at least the other
great apes have some concept of sentience, seeing as they can be taught
to communicate with humans through palm language.
A man is nothing more than what he makes of himself, but neither is he
anything less.
When I die I will be dead, and that will be the end of me.
Same with you, so live while you have the chance.
Zadok
"Bitsbucket" <> wrote in message ...
> You have no idea, why do you insist in posting things which you know
nothing
> about? Yes, GOD did kill his son, Jesus, the lord in the flesh, to give
> people like you a chance, and I stress the word chance, at immortal life,
by
> washing away your sins, and the reason I stress chance, is that if you
don't
> come to believe that Jesus died for your sins, then you will not go to
> heaven. Why do people like you insist, that this is a fantasy? I really
> don't get it. Why take the chance that you are right and a book that is 2K
> years old is wrong?
Your Santa Claus idea, of toys (heaven) for being good, and a lump of Coal
(hell) for being bad, is kind of old hat.
> I guess that you believe that when you die you are DEAD and gone, poof
> that's it? You think that you are no better than a dumb animal?
I think that's because in the history of mankind there is nor proof that man
ever went anywhere, other than a hole in the ground.
We do have stories where Inanna, a Sumerian Goddess was raised from the
dead. Attis was hung on a tree on Black Friday, and arose on the Pagan Day
of the Sun. Do you need any more arisen gods??
But let me guess, you want us to believe your fable, and throw out the other
fables??
> May God have mercy on your soul.....I hpe he does,as I know where I will
go
> when I die, and you won't be there unless you let someone explain it to
you,
> and you come to know Christ. Why would you NOT believe? I just don't get
> it.......
And you will never get it. That is the beauty of blind faith.
You get to drop to your knees and mumble, while real people ask questions!!
The only reason religion is around after 2,000 years is that a bunch of
religionists found they could make a living at doing it. And once that
became evident, it became a self perpetuating plague on true believers.
But hey, stay on your knees.
Uncle Vic
made the light shine upon us with this:
> You have no idea, why do you insist in posting things which you know
I love watching these idiots argue over non-existent issues. They claim
there is only one true religion, but nobody can agree what it is.
kope2
i always said that human are dumb creature.
Lion Of Judah
>
> I love watching these idiots argue over non-existent issues. They claim
> there is only one true religion, but nobody can agree what it is.
Actually there are two, the religion of the Blessed Father which is Buddhism
and the religion of the Son of the Blessed One which is the New Testament
only.
See Majjhima Nikaya 111.
Paddy O'Day
>
> God is responsible for the death of Jesus
>
> STATEMENT:
>
> o God killed Jesus.
>
> o That's right: God is the *ONLY* one responsible for Jesus' death.
>
> ---
>
> CHRISTIAN FACTS:
>
> o God is all-powerful.
>
> o God knows everything. Everything that has happened, everything
> that will happen.
>
> ---
>
> EXTRAPOLATION:
>
> o God knew that if he put his son here his son would be killed.
>
> o Since God knew this, he is an accessory to the crime.
>
> Suppose you have a child, or a "lamb", and you put it out in
> your fields - where you *know* the wolves will kill it. Who is
> responsible for its death: the wolves, or you?
>
> The wolves were acting as you *knew* they would. They did *just*
> what you expected them to do. It's *your* fault the child died.
>
> http://www.jewsforjudaism.org
>
> Bumper Sticker
>
> DIVINE INSANITY
> wrath! (Author unknown)
>
> One God, father-son-ghost?
>
> Holy Trinity "Me, Myself, and I"
>
> Triune god: "Buy one god, get two free"
>
> There is no copyright to this post or its contents anything can be
> taken from this post without permission.
Old news.
JAM
duke
Gotcha.
duke
>You have no idea, why do you insist in posting things which you know nothing
>about? Yes, GOD did kill his son, Jesus, the lord in the flesh,
No he didn't. God became flesh in the person of Jesus to die on the cross for
the redemption from son and to restore salvation to souls.
You don't know anymore than he does.
duke
>Why waste my words on him, he wouldn't understand most of them,
>probably wouldn't read half of them. And anyway, you state something as
>fact with no evidence.
What is really totally without evidence is the non-existence of God Almighty.
Now what?
>I am not scared of hell, because there is no hell, I would rather focus
>on living before I die, thank you very much.
But then you die, and then you find out if you were right or were wrong. And at
that point, it's too late to change your mind.
Imagine, an eternity of torment in satan's lair with the white hot tips of the
flames of hell tickling at the cheeks of your ass. And for all eternity to
boot.
Uncle Vic
made the light shine upon us with this:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:33:17 -0400, "Bitsbucket" <us...@user.com>
> wrote:
>
>>You have no idea, why do you insist in posting things which you know
>>nothing about? Yes, GOD did kill his son, Jesus, the lord in the
>>flesh,
>
> No he didn't. God became flesh in the person of Jesus to die on the
> cross for the redemption from son and to restore salvation to souls.
Then I'm right. He sacrificed himself to himself to save his own creation
from his own wrath. What a stupid concept.
Uncle Vic
made the light shine upon us with this:
> On 13 Aug 2006 18:08:38 -0700, "Lucifer" <wyrd...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Why waste my words on him, he wouldn't understand most of them,
>>probably wouldn't read half of them. And anyway, you state something
>>as fact with no evidence.
>
> What is really totally without evidence is the non-existence of God
> Almighty.
But why bother with that? Have you confirmed your beliefs by looking for
evidence of the non-existence of all the other gods men have invented?
>
> Now what?
Look for evidence for the *existence* of your god, outside of your
religion and your mind.
>
>>I am not scared of hell, because there is no hell, I would rather
>>focus on living before I die, thank you very much.
>
> But then you die, and then you find out if you were right or were
> wrong.
There is no evidence this will happen, and therefore no reason to believe
it. When you die your brain is dead and incapable of "finding out"
anything. It'll be like the other time your brain wasn't functioning -
before you were born.
> And at that point, it's too late to change your mind.
This is only your religious belief, and does not apply to those who do
not share it with you.
>
> Imagine, an eternity of torment in satan's lair with the white hot
> tips of the flames of hell tickling at the cheeks of your ass. And
> for all eternity to boot.
>
It is, after all, only imaginary.
Neil Kelsey
Bitsbucket wrote:
> You have no idea, why do you insist in posting things which you know nothing
> about? Yes, GOD did kill his son, Jesus, the lord in the flesh, to give
> people like you a chance, and I stress the word chance, at immortal life, by
> washing away your sins, and the reason I stress chance, is that if you don't
> come to believe that Jesus died for your sins, then you will not go to
> heaven. Why do people like you insist, that this is a fantasy? I really
> don't get it. Why take the chance that you are right and a book that is 2K
> years old is wrong?
> I guess that you believe that when you die you are DEAD and gone, poof
> that's it? You think that you are no better than a dumb animal?
We ARE animals. And if you think animals are dumb, think again. They
just showed that dolphins have individual names for each other.
> Why can you
> reason and have free will then?
Because our brain (and therefore our intelligence) evolved to allow us
exceptional reason (other animals can reason too). Free will is another
matter, and one that depends on the existence of god. Since I don't
think god exists, free will is irrelevant.
> Animals (can't do this) and are driven by
> instincts, are you?
We ARE animals, and we have some instincts. What do you think the urge
to have sex is?
> are you telling me that you are an animal? No better
> than a dog?
We ARE animals! There is no question. We are no better, and no worse,
than a dog, but I happen to have a particular fondness for my own
species. What have you got against dogs?
> Scientific study can not explain alot of things, so because you can't
> measure it with a multimeter, you don't believe it?
And science can explain a lot of things too, and probably a lot of
things you aren't aware of since it doesn't look to me like you've
cracked open too many science books. Humans aren't animals? Come on.
> You have no soul because
> you can't see it or touch it?
No one has proved the existence of the soul, therefore some of us
conclude there is no soul. You can't see it or touch it or use any of
your senses to verify it. Why would I think it exists then?
> You can't touch the wind either, does that
> mean it does not exist?
Well, the wind touches you, so that's not a very good point.
> Yes I agree you can measure it's speed, but that is
> not the whole idea, now is it?
Yes, it is the whole idea. There is proof that the wind exists, and
there is no proof that the soul exists. Sometimes proof takes time to
produce, but we've been waiting for thousands of years for proof of the
soul, god, etc. The more time goes by the less likely it seems that any
proof is coming. I've given up waiting. I conclude there is no soul,
and there is no god, and that they are all fabrications of some
bewildered goat herders several thousand years ago.
> I will pray for you, I have no hard feelings for you, I just pity you,
> calling yourself Lucifer, does that mean you are a Satanist? You believe in
> evil but not good?
I'll answer for Lucifer (sorry Lucifer, I can't resist). His name is
ironic.
> I really do not understand you atheist folk, please explain to me, (convert
> me?) Do NOT be an ass about this, I am truly curious, why is it you do not
> believe in GOD, and afterlife, or anything.
I'm an atheist folk. I do not believe in god, afterlifes, or anything,
because there is no proof for them and they do not fit in with the
world I've experienced, which is devoid of the supernatural. I do not
believe because believing doesn't make any sense.
....and by the way if you are
> truly an atheist then you would not call yourself Lucifer, as that is bound
> by the Christian faith. So are you an atheist or a Satanist?
> May God have mercy on your soul.....I hpe he does,as I know where I will go
> when I die, and you won't be there unless you let someone explain it to you,
> and you come to know Christ. Why would you NOT believe? I just don't get
> it.......
> God Bless,
And I am just as astonished that you DO believe.
Cary Kittrell
>
> On 13 Aug 2006 18:08:38 -0700, "Lucifer" <wyrd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Why waste my words on him, he wouldn't understand most of them,
> >probably wouldn't read half of them. And anyway, you state something as
> >fact with no evidence.
>
> What is really totally without evidence is the non-existence of God Almighty.
>
> Now what?
>
> >I am not scared of hell, because there is no hell, I would rather focus
> >on living before I die, thank you very much.
>
> But then you die, and then you find out if you were right or were wrong. And at
> that point, it's too late to change your mind.
>
> Imagine, an eternity of torment in satan's lair
"Satan's lair"?
Do you ever actually read that Bible thingie?
> with the white hot tips of the
> flames of hell tickling at the cheeks of your ass. And for all eternity to
> boot.
Imagine an eternity of Bast playing cat and human with you.
-- cary
Lucifer
Don't mind you answering for me, seeign as you said basically what i
would say, as for my name, tis my handle. Bkiers tend to have them, tis
also my radio name on the college radio show i present.
Satanism is a waste of time and goats...
You may not get why I don't believe, but then, you are a religious
fuckwit, try presenting EVIDENCE of why you do believe, then you might
have some credibil;ity, but, until then, fuck off.
Neil Kelsey
HAAAA!!! Waste of goats...that's hilarious.
What is your radio show?
Lucifer
It's a college thing, sadly for copywright reasons it's hardwired
around our college and not available any other way, tis called the
Mortuary show, we generally use the slogan "The corpses have taken over
the funeral parlour"
duke
>>>Why waste my words on him, he wouldn't understand most of them,
>>>probably wouldn't read half of them. And anyway, you state something
>>>as fact with no evidence.
>> What is really totally without evidence is the non-existence of God
>> Almighty.
>But why bother with that? Have you confirmed your beliefs by looking for
>evidence of the non-existence of all the other gods men have invented?
Mine walked out of the tomb after being dead for part of 3 days. Not a one of
any of the others ever lifted so much as one wooden finger.
>> Now what?
>Look for evidence for the *existence* of your god, outside of your
>religion and your mind.
Done, and confirmed.
>>>I am not scared of hell, because there is no hell, I would rather
>>>focus on living before I die, thank you very much.
>> But then you die, and then you find out if you were right or were
>> wrong.
>There is no evidence this will happen, and therefore no reason to believe
>it.
My man Jesus walking out of his tomb is real evidence.
> When you die your brain is dead and incapable of "finding out"
>anything. It'll be like the other time your brain wasn't functioning -
>before you were born.
pffftttt - you think God can't rekindle life at will? And remember, if my brain
wasn't functioning before I was born, it did after.
>> And at that point, it's too late to change your mind.
>This is only your religious belief, and does not apply to those who do
>not share it with you.
Your mad desire to pretend that God doesn't exist will not stop him from your
moment of judgment one moment after you die.
>> Imagine, an eternity of torment in satan's lair with the white hot
>> tips of the flames of hell tickling at the cheeks of your ass. And
>> for all eternity to boot.
>It is, after all, only imaginary.
Yeah, sure it is. Best of luck.
duke
>> No he didn't. God became flesh in the person of Jesus to die on the
>> cross for the redemption from son and to restore salvation to souls.
>Then I'm right. He sacrificed himself to himself to save his own creation
>from his own wrath. What a stupid concept.
No, to save his creation from themselves.
Uncle Vic
made the light shine upon us with this:
>>> What is really totally without evidence is the non-existence of God
>>> Almighty.
>
>>But why bother with that? Have you confirmed your beliefs by looking
>>for evidence of the non-existence of all the other gods men have
>>invented?
>
> Mine walked out of the tomb after being dead for part of 3 days. Not
> a one of any of the others ever lifted so much as one wooden finger.
>
>>> Now what?
>
>>Look for evidence for the *existence* of your god, outside of your
>>religion and your mind.
>
> Done, and confirmed.
>
>>>>I am not scared of hell, because there is no hell, I would rather
>>>>focus on living before I die, thank you very much.
>>> But then you die, and then you find out if you were right or were
>>> wrong.
>
>>There is no evidence this will happen, and therefore no reason to
>>believe it.
>
> My man Jesus walking out of his tomb is real evidence.
A story in a book is not evidence for itself.
Scott Richter
> Your mad desire to pretend that God doesn't exist will not stop him from
> your moment of judgment one moment after you die.
Here's a tip. For scare tactics to work, the person at whom the threat
is directed has to believe the scariness. It doesn't work if only the
person making the threat believes it...
> duke, American-American Idiot-Idiot
> *****
> "The Ass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul LXIX
> *****
Scott Richter
> But then you die, and then you find out if you were right or were wrong.
> And at that point, it's too late to change your mind.
Why? If you can find out something after you die, you should be able to
change your mind after you die, shouldn't you? Seems only reasonable...
> Imagine, an eternity of torment in satan's lair with the white hot tips of
> the flames of hell tickling at the cheeks of your ass.
Wow, *someone* is really into the whole S&M trip, I guess.
And just out of curiosity, is satan's lair soundproof? I would certainly
hope so, with all the flames and cheeks and stuff. Otherwise, the
neighbors would probably get pretty pissed off...
> duke, American-American Idiot-Idiot
> *****
> "The Ass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul LXIX
> *****
duke
>>>Why waste my words on him, he wouldn't understand most of them,
>>>probably wouldn't read half of them. And anyway, you state something
>>>as fact with no evidence.
>> What is really totally without evidence is the non-existence of God
>> Almighty.
>But why bother with that? Have you confirmed your beliefs by looking for
>evidence of the non-existence of all the other gods men have invented?
Men didn't invent God almighty, though.
>> Now what?
>Look for evidence for the *existence* of your god, outside of your
>religion and your mind.
I'm thinking in terms of eternal life after life.
>>>I am not scared of hell, because there is no hell, I would rather
>>>focus on living before I die, thank you very much.
>> But then you die, and then you find out if you were right or were
>> wrong.
>There is no evidence this will happen, and therefore no reason to believe
>it. When you die your brain is dead and incapable of "finding out"
>anything. It'll be like the other time your brain wasn't functioning -
>before you were born.
No evidence, eh. Hey, it's your funeral.
>> And at that point, it's too late to change your mind.
>This is only your religious belief, and does not apply to those who do
>not share it with you.
Sorry, refusing to believe now has nothing to do with future reality.
duke
wrote:
>> But then you die, and then you find out if you were right or were wrong.
>> And at that point, it's too late to change your mind.
>Why? If you can find out something after you die, you should be able to
>change your mind after you die, shouldn't you? Seems only reasonable...
Nope, it doesn't. We will be judged at the moment our life ends on this earth.
Decision making is over. And you reflected what you are by the way you act
while in the flesh.
>> Imagine, an eternity of torment in satan's lair with the white hot tips of
>> the flames of hell tickling at the cheeks of your ass.
>Wow, *someone* is really into the whole S&M trip, I guess.
One day you too will die, then judgment.
>And just out of curiosity, is satan's lair soundproof? I would certainly
>hope so, with all the flames and cheeks and stuff. Otherwise, the
>neighbors would probably get pretty pissed off...
All the neighbors are making their own racket.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
drahcir
duke wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:28:49 -0700, scottri...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter)
> wrote:
>
> >> But then you die, and then you find out if you were right or were wrong.
> >> And at that point, it's too late to change your mind.
>
> >Why? If you can find out something after you die, you should be able to
> >change your mind after you die, shouldn't you? Seems only reasonable...
>
> Nope, it doesn't. We will be judged at the moment our life ends on this earth.
> Decision making is over. And you reflected what you are by the way you act
> while in the flesh.
>
> >> Imagine, an eternity of torment in satan's lair with the white hot tips of
> >> the flames of hell tickling at the cheeks of your ass.
> >Wow, *someone* is really into the whole S&M trip, I guess.
>
> One day you too will die, then judgment.
You got that almost right. One day you too will die, then nothing.
Uncle Vic
made the light shine upon us with this:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:23:40 -0500, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>Why waste my words on him, he wouldn't understand most of them,
>>>>probably wouldn't read half of them. And anyway, you state something
>>>>as fact with no evidence.
>
>>> What is really totally without evidence is the non-existence of God
>>> Almighty.
>
>>But why bother with that? Have you confirmed your beliefs by looking
>>for evidence of the non-existence of all the other gods men have
>>invented?
>
> Men didn't invent God almighty, though.
They most certainly did. Many gods existed in the minds of men before
yours was invented. You know them too, you think they have wooden
fingers. We have written records that show what early civilizations
believed. Yours only go back about 4000 years at the most. The writings
of men that believed in your god show that they believed the universe was
created 6000 years ago. Yet we have fossil remains that date back a few
billion years. These fossil remains prove that someone is lying, and
it's not science...
>
>>> Now what?
>>Look for evidence for the *existence* of your god, outside of your
>>religion and your mind.
>
> I'm thinking in terms of eternal life after life.
You misspelled "wishing".
<snip christerthreats that have no bearing on those not inflicted with
christer palsy>
The_Sage
>Date written: 13 Aug 2006 07:16:15 -0700
>MsgID:<1155478575.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>God is responsible for the death of Jesus
>STATEMENT:
>o God killed Jesus.
>o That's right: God is the *ONLY* one responsible for Jesus' death.
>CHRISTIAN FACTS:
>o God is all-powerful.
>o God knows everything. Everything that has happened, everything
> that will happen.
The same is true of the Jewish God that the Christian God is a copy of.
>EXTRAPOLATION:
>o God knew that if he put his son here his son would be killed.
>o Since God knew this, he is an accessory to the crime.
God (aka YAHWEH) knew that if he put Adam and Eve here, they would sin and
introduce death into the world. That makes God an accessory to all death and
crime and sin.
> Suppose you have a child, or a "lamb", and you put it out in
> your fields - where you *know* the wolves will kill it. Who is
> responsible for its death: the wolves, or you?
> The wolves were acting as you *knew* they would. They did *just*
> what you expected them to do. It's *your* fault the child died.
Suppose you have a father and when you were barely one year old, you one day
disobeyed your father and broke the antique lamp in the living room. Your father
then kicked you out of the house, destroyed the house, and then took off so you
could never find him again. Every once in awhile, your father would write you
loving letters and asked you to trust him to never abandon you, that he loved
you with all his heart, and someday he would return to find you...unless that
is, no longer believed in him or trusted him, in which case he would return to
torture and kill you, along with anyone who tried to intervene and help you.
Isn't that a wonderful story? Yet it is exactly the story told in Genesis, the
same exact story that Jews and Christians love to hear over and over again.
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
colp
Truth Hunter wrote:
> God is responsible for the death of Jesus
>
Not really.
>
> STATEMENT:
>
> o God killed Jesus.
>
'God' being a purely religious construct (an idol of the heart), not an
actual deity, and Jesus being the Christian idea of Jesus.
>
> o That's right: God is the *ONLY* one responsible for Jesus' death.
>
>
> ---
>
>
> CHRISTIAN FACTS:
are not real facts. They are statements of belief which are not
necessarily connected to reality.
>
>
> o God is all-powerful.
Not according to the Bible he isn't.
>
>
> o God knows everything. Everything that has happened, everything
> that will happen.
Not according to the Bible he doesn't.
colp
The_Sage wrote:
> >Reply to article by: "Truth Hunter" <hunter...@yahoo.com>
> >Date written: 13 Aug 2006 07:16:15 -0700
> >MsgID:<1155478575.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>
> >God is responsible for the death of Jesus
> >STATEMENT:
> >o God killed Jesus.
> >o That's right: God is the *ONLY* one responsible for Jesus' death.
>
> >CHRISTIAN FACTS:
> >o God is all-powerful.
> >o God knows everything. Everything that has happened, everything
> > that will happen.
>
> The same is true of the Jewish God that the Christian God is a copy of.
Yes. Both 'Omniscient Gods' are make from the same crappy ideas.
There is no omniscience in Jeremiah 32:35
And they built the high places of Baal, which [are] in the valley of
the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass
through [the fire] unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither
came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause
Judah to sin.
Jeremiah 32:35
Scott Richter
>>> But then you die, and then you find out if you were right or were
>>> wrong. And at that point, it's too late to change your mind.
>
> >Why? If you can find out something after you die, you should be able to
> >change your mind after you die, shouldn't you? Seems only reasonable...
>
> Nope, it doesn't. We will be judged at the moment our life ends on this
> earth. Decision making is over.
But you're saying that cognition isn't over? You "find out if you were
right or were wrong" after you die? If that's true, then you should be
able to make decisions, because you're still cognizant, according to
what you said. So, in theory, one ought to be able to repent at that
point, no?
Maybe I'm just confused here. I know you have an advanced degree in
Sunday School theology and all, so please go slowly for us who don't
have your extensive background in the magical mysteries of religious
superstition.
> duke, American-American Idiot-Idiot
> *****
> "The Ass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul LXIX
> *****
Jim07D6
More is needed.
It not coming into his mind *that* they *should* do it, means that he
knew they *shouldn't* do it. Omniscience is not contradicted by him
not knowing they *should* do it, because he knew they shouldn't.
Obviously he does not know we should do something, if he knows w
shouldn't. He doesn't know falsehoods.
-- Jim07D6
colp
Nope. That's a contrived interpretation.
The "should do" refers to the actuality of the event, not to whether
the event was condoned or not.
The Hebrew word translated for the phrase "should do" is ashah:
1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make
a) (Qal)
1) to do, work, make, produce
a) to do
b) to work
c) to deal (with)
d) to act, act with effect, effect
2) to make
a) to make
b) to produce
c) to prepare
d) to make (an offering)
e) to attend to, put in order
f) to observe, celebrate
g) to acquire (property)
h) to appoint, ordain, institute
i) to bring about
j) to use
k) to spend, pass
The Truth
So let's see - God wants us to think He is onmiscient, but then he has
the prophet write this down - wow, God really goofed up! Or maybe the
prophet wrote this just knowing God is not omniscient. But then how
would the prohet know what God was thinking? Oh - maybe it's Jeremiah
who is omniscient...Golly gee.
And by the way - if you are going to translate a word - than translate
it - dont just echo a lexical list. Translation happens within context,
both textual and historical. My guess is that you dont even know
Hebrew.
t
In article <1155882481.7...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, colp
Jim07D6
This represents a misunderstanding of the (fictional) character called
God, whose existence and character *precedes* any scriptural
interpretation, and to which any interpretation must bow. The
character of God is not swayed by the winds of language.
Do you really think God would guide you to conclude that He is not
omniscient, by your reading of something He put into his Holy Word?
Obviously and patently, your reading of it is incorrect, as God *is*
omniscient. The fictional God, that is.
The problem of all those who analyze and pick and choose, for
themselves, word derivations from the earliest extant scriptures, is
that they overlook the fact that the translation is immune from error,
because God *is* omniscient and omnipotent and does not lie to us. God
would not permit corruption to enter into the scriptures. Corruption
enters by a disjoint between the meaning of the word as God intended
it (including His supervision of the translation), and the meaning of
the selected new-language word as applied outside the context of the
scripture, by an individual such as yourself. Therefore, the meaning
of "should do" as read by me, is correct, if its selection was
supervised by an omniscient, omnipotent God who does not lie. QED.
In short, you have to *assume* that God is not omniscient, omnipotent
and truthful (and so would not prevent (erroneous interpretations) in
order to justify your *conclusion* that He is not omniscient. But by
assuming that God is omniscient, we can easily see that the
imperfection of these words you quote is in you, not in Him. The
fictional Him, that is. QED on that, too.
-- Jim07D6
wcb
>
> So let's see - God wants us to think He is onmiscient, but then he has
> the prophet write this down - wow, God really goofed up! Or maybe the
> prophet wrote this just knowing God is not omniscient. But then how
> would the prohet know what God was thinking? Oh - maybe it's Jeremiah
> who is omniscient...Golly gee.
>
OMNISCIENCE PRROF TEXTS
OLD TESTMENT
Jeremiah. 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew
thee.
Is. 41:23
Show the things that are to come hereafter, that
we may know that ye are gods"
Isaiah 46:10
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am
God, and there is none else; I am God, and there
is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from
ancient times the things that are not yet done,
saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do
all my pleasure:
Job 21:22
22 Shall any teach God knowledge? Seeing he judgeth those
that are high.
Job 36:4
3 I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will
ascribe righteousness to my Maker.
4 For truly my words shall not be false: he that
is perfect in knowledge is with thee.
Proverbs 15:3
The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping
watch on the evil and the good.
Psalm 139
1 LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me .
2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising,
thou understandest my thought afar off.
3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and
art acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but,
lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before,
and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit?
or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there:
if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there .
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell
in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me,
and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me;
even the night shall be light about me.
12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but
the night shineth as the day: the darkness and
the light are both alike to thee.
Psalms 147:5
3 He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth
up their wounds.
4 He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth
them all by their names.
5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding
is infinite.
NEW TESTMENT
John 21:17
Lord, thou knowest all things?
1 John 3:20
God is greater than our heart, and
knoweth all things.
Acts 15:18
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets;
as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again
the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down;
and I will build again the ruins thereof, and
I will set it up:
Hebrews 4:13
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest
in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto
the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
1 Peter 1:2
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God
the Father,...
END
--
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the
eyes out of his Reason."
- Martin Luther
Cheerful Charlie
Gandalf Grey
"wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ebpp8...@corp.supernews.com...
> The Truth wrote:
>
>>
>> So let's see - God wants us to think He is onmiscient, but then he has
>> the prophet write this down - wow, God really goofed up! Or maybe the
>> prophet wrote this just knowing God is not omniscient. But then how
>> would the prohet know what God was thinking? Oh - maybe it's Jeremiah
>> who is omniscient...Golly gee.
>>
> OMNISCIENCE PRROF TEXTS
The bible can't be proof of anything because everything in the bible is
subject to contradiction.
wcb
>
> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:12ebpp8...@corp.supernews.com...
>> The Truth wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So let's see - God wants us to think He is onmiscient, but then he has
>>> the prophet write this down - wow, God really goofed up! Or maybe the
>>> prophet wrote this just knowing God is not omniscient. But then how
>>> would the prohet know what God was thinking? Oh - maybe it's Jeremiah
>>> who is omniscient...Golly gee.
>>>
>> OMNISCIENCE PROOF TEXTS
>
> The bible can't be proof of anything because everything in the bible is
> subject to contradiction.
What a moron, we see that these claims simply don't work
as assertions about god. Which is the point.
These are where these sort of claims come from. Moron.
OMNISCIENCE PROOF TEXTS
OLD TESTMENT
Jeremiah. 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew
thee.
Is. 41:23
Show the things that are to come hereafter, that
we may know that ye are gods"
Isaiah 46:10
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am
God, and there is none else; I am God, and there
is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from
ancient times the things that are not yet done,
saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do
all my pleasure:
Ezekiel 11:5
And the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me,
and said unto me, Speak; Thus saith the LORD;
Thus have ye said, O house of Israel: for I know
the things that come into your mind, every one of them.
Job 21:22
22 Shall any teach God knowledge? Seeing he judgeth those
that are high.
Job 36:4
3 I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will
ascribe righteousness to my Maker.
4 For truly my words shall not be false: he that
is perfect in knowledge is with thee.
Proverbs 15:3
The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping
watch on the evil and the good(Proverbs 15:3).
NEW TESTMENT
Acts 15:18
Known unto God are all his works from the
beginning of the world.
Romans 2:16
In the day when God shall judge the secrets
of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Romans 11:33
33 O the depth of the riches both of the
wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his
judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord?
or who hath been his counseller?
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>> news:12ebpp8...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> The Truth wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So let's see - God wants us to think He is onmiscient, but then he has
>>>> the prophet write this down - wow, God really goofed up! Or maybe the
>>>> prophet wrote this just knowing God is not omniscient. But then how
>>>> would the prohet know what God was thinking? Oh - maybe it's Jeremiah
>>>> who is omniscient...Golly gee.
>>>>
>>> OMNISCIENCE PROOF TEXTS
>>
>> The bible can't be proof of anything because everything in the bible is
>> subject to contradiction.
>
> What a moron, we see that these claims simply don't work
> as assertions about god.
They don't work either way, Barwell. If you're attempting to disprove the
existence of any possible god, which is what you pretend to be able to do,
they don't help your case at all.
colp
> So let's see - God wants us to think He is onmiscient,
Why do you think that is the case?
wcb
What proof texts do they use to support these claims?
colp
Your are referring to the idols of the mind, I assume.
>
> Do you really think God would guide you to conclude that He is not
> omniscient, by your reading of something He put into his Holy Word?
The living Word is not the Bible or any writings. According to the
Tanak, the Word communicated with the prophets, who then wrote of their
experiences. These writings were then translated and included with
other books, resulting in the Bible.
> Obviously and patently, your reading of it is incorrect, as God *is*
> omniscient. The fictional God, that is.
Obviously and patently, Jeremiah 32:25 is not referring to the
omniscient 'God' who exists only in the minds of men.
>
> The problem of all those who analyze and pick and choose, for
> themselves, word derivations from the earliest extant scriptures, is
> that they overlook the fact that the translation is immune from error,
> because God *is* omniscient and omnipotent and does not lie to us.
Here 'God' refers to an idol of the mind. 1 Kings 22 tells of YHWH
sending a lying spirit to cause the defeat of Ahab.
> God
> would not permit corruption to enter into the scriptures.
Corruption of the scriptures exists. Stephen's discourse to the Jews in
Acts contains a conflation of recorded events, the accounts of the fate
of Judas differ, as do the accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb.
The 'camel through the eye of the needle' is a mistranslation, as is
'God is a Spirit'.
> Corruption
> enters by a disjoint between the meaning of the word as God intended
> it (including His supervision of the translation), and the meaning of
> the selected new-language word as applied outside the context of the
> scripture, by an individual such as yourself.
> Therefore, the meaning
> of "should do" as read by me, is correct, if its selection was
> supervised by an omniscient, omnipotent God who does not lie. QED.
Non sequitir. The fact that mistranslations occur does not mean that
your interpretation is correct and mine is not.
The meaning of "should do" that I used is from Strongs concordance, and
is typical of other usage of the Hebrew word 'ashah'. Your meaning is
atypical and is supported only by doctrine, not scripture.
>
> In short, you have to *assume* that God is not omniscient, omnipotent
> and truthful (and so would not prevent (erroneous interpretations) in
> order to justify your *conclusion* that He is not omniscient.
No assumption is necessary. 1 Kings 22 shows the deception of prophets,
and Jeremiah 32:35 shows a lack of omniscience.
> But by
> assuming that God is omniscient, we can easily see that the
> imperfection of these words you quote is in you, not in Him. The
> fictional Him, that is. QED on that, too.
> -- Jim07D6
That assumption is consistent with delusion.
Gandalf Grey
> Christianity claims god is omniscient.
> What proof texts do they use to support these claims?
>
>
>
> OMNISCIENCE PROOF TEXTS
The bible doesn't prove anything.
colp
wcb wrote:
> The Truth wrote:
>
> >
> > So let's see - God wants us to think He is onmiscient, but then he has
> > the prophet write this down - wow, God really goofed up! Or maybe the
> > prophet wrote this just knowing God is not omniscient. But then how
> > would the prohet know what God was thinking? Oh - maybe it's Jeremiah
> > who is omniscient...Golly gee.
> >
> OMNISCIENCE PRROF TEXTS
>
> OLD TESTMENT
>
> Jeremiah. 1:5
> Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew
> thee.
Knoweldge is not the same as omniscience.
>
> Is. 41:23
> Show the things that are to come hereafter, that
> we may know that ye are gods"
Prophecy is not omniscience.
>
> Isaiah 46:10
> 9 Remember the former things of old: for I am
> God, and there is none else; I am God, and there
> is none like me,
> 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from
> ancient times the things that are not yet done,
> saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do
> all my pleasure:
Omniscience is the knowledge of all things, not only the beginning and
the end.
>
> Job 21:22
> 22 Shall any teach God knowledge? Seeing he judgeth those
> that are high.
That is a rhetorical question, and it only implies man's lack of
knowledge.
>
> Job 36:4
> 3 I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will
> ascribe righteousness to my Maker.
> 4 For truly my words shall not be false: he that
> is perfect in knowledge is with thee.
Perfect in knowledge can be interpreted to mean that what is known is
prefectly accurate.
>
> Proverbs 15:3
> The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping
> watch on the evil and the good.
Omniscience implies knoweldge of the mundane as well as the extremes of
good and evil.
The Psalm is speaking of the knowledge of the writer, not of knowledge
of people in general.
>
> Psalms 147:5
> 3 He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth
> up their wounds.
> 4 He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth
> them all by their names.
> 5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding
> is infinite.
Understanding is not the same as knowledge.
>
> NEW TESTMENT
>
> John 21:17
> Lord, thou knowest all things?
Out of context.
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou
me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest
thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou
knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
> 1 John 3:20
> God is greater than our heart, and
> knoweth all things.
Out of context.
For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth
all things.
>
> Acts 15:18
> 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets;
> as it is written,
> 16 After this I will return, and will build again
> the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down;
> and I will build again the ruins thereof, and
> I will set it up:
This isn't about omniscience.
>
> Hebrews 4:13
> 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest
> in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto
> the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
This seems to contradicts Jeremiah 19:5
>
>
> 1 Peter 1:2
> 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God
> the Father,...
> END
Foreknowledge is not omniscience.
Jim07D6
They are the only ones to which I think we can refer.
>
>>
>> Do you really think God would guide you to conclude that He is not
>> omniscient, by your reading of something He put into his Holy Word?
>
>The living Word is not the Bible or any writings. According to the
>Tanak, the Word communicated with the prophets, who then wrote of their
>experiences. These writings were then translated and included with
>other books, resulting in the Bible.
Right.
>
>> Obviously and patently, your reading of it is incorrect, as God *is*
>> omniscient. The fictional God, that is.
>
>Obviously and patently, Jeremiah 32:25 is not referring to the
>omniscient 'God' who exists only in the minds of men.
Which is the only realm of its existence to which we have access.
>
>>
>> The problem of all those who analyze and pick and choose, for
>> themselves, word derivations from the earliest extant scriptures, is
>> that they overlook the fact that the translation is immune from error,
>> because God *is* omniscient and omnipotent and does not lie to us.
>
>Here 'God' refers to an idol of the mind. 1 Kings 22 tells of YHWH
>sending a lying spirit to cause the defeat of Ahab.
Establishing the concept of plausible deniability.
>
>> God
>> would not permit corruption to enter into the scriptures.
>
>Corruption of the scriptures exists. Stephen's discourse to the Jews in
>Acts contains a conflation of recorded events, the accounts of the fate
>of Judas differ, as do the accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb.
>The 'camel through the eye of the needle' is a mistranslation, as is
>'God is a Spirit'.
THere is no corruption of scripture, if it is scripture. God assures
that each person reads the truth he needs to read. It is only
self-appointe go-betweens who call scripture corrupt. That's the way
the story goes and you should get over yourself about it..
>
>> Corruption
>> enters by a disjoint between the meaning of the word as God intended
>> it (including His supervision of the translation), and the meaning of
>> the selected new-language word as applied outside the context of the
>> scripture, by an individual such as yourself.
>> Therefore, the meaning
>> of "should do" as read by me, is correct, if its selection was
>> supervised by an omniscient, omnipotent God who does not lie. QED.
>
>Non sequitir. The fact that mistranslations occur does not mean that
>your interpretation is correct and mine is not.
Mistranslations do not occur, since each person is reached directly.
It is only person A who says it does not say to person B what person A
wants person B to hear. But God is the one to decide what person B is
to hear, not person A. So shut your yap and leave it to God. Take the
role of person B, and let no one be person A to you. And be not person
A to any one.
>
>The meaning of "should do" that I used is from Strongs concordance, and
>is typical of other usage of the Hebrew word 'ashah'. Your meaning is
>atypical and is supported only by doctrine, not scripture.
Strong is not God.
>
>>
>> In short, you have to *assume* that God is not omniscient, omnipotent
>> and truthful (and so would not prevent (erroneous interpretations) in
>> order to justify your *conclusion* that He is not omniscient.
>
>No assumption is necessary. 1 Kings 22 shows the deception of prophets,
>and Jeremiah 32:35 shows a lack of omniscience.
So it is that God tells you. I will no further seek to intervene.
>
>> But by
>> assuming that God is omniscient, we can easily see that the
>> imperfection of these words you quote is in you, not in Him. The
>> fictional Him, that is. QED on that, too.
>> -- Jim07D6
>
>That assumption is consistent with delusion.
All assumptions are consistent with some delusion or another. THis
cannot be avoided.
-- Jim07D6
Malcolm
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>> But then you die, and then you find out if you were right or were
>>>> wrong. And at that point, it's too late to change your mind.
>>
>> >Why? If you can find out something after you die, you should be able to
>> >change your mind after you die, shouldn't you? Seems only reasonable...
>>
>> Nope, it doesn't. We will be judged at the moment our life ends on this
>> earth. Decision making is over.
>
> But you're saying that cognition isn't over? You "find out if you were
> right or were wrong" after you die? If that's true, then you should be
> able to make decisions, because you're still cognizant, according to
> what you said. So, in theory, one ought to be able to repent at that
> point, no?
>
> Maybe I'm just confused here. I know you have an advanced degree in
> Sunday School theology and all, so please go slowly for us who don't
> have your extensive background in the magical mysteries of religious
> superstition.
>
seen Coke and Pepsi stacked up in the fridge. You choose the Coke, take it
out of the refridgerator, and put in in your hand. At this point you've
decided to buy the Coke. However it wouldn't be too hard to slip it back in
again, and select the Pepsi. You walk to the checkout, and join the queue.
Now you have to make a bit of effort to walk back, repalce the Coke, and get
the Pepsi. Then you pay for the drink. At this point, it becomes socially
very awkward to ask for a replacement, but not impossible. You walk into the
street. Now it's ever harder to go back in and revoke your choice. Your hand
moves over the can ring pull and fzzzzzt - the choice is now irrevocable.
Having said that, maybe there is some way of undoing what you have just
done. If you really hate the Coca Cola company, you could poison some of
their products or assassinate an executive or something. But you can't not
buy that can of Coke any longer. That choice is no longer open to you.
--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
duke
>> One day you too will die, then judgment.
>You got that almost right. One day you too will die, then nothing.
But why would anyone believe that/you? You can't even begin to support such a
wild idea.
duke
wrote:
>> Nope, it doesn't. We will be judged at the moment our life ends on this
>> earth. Decision making is over.
>But you're saying that cognition isn't over?
The next life has nothing to do with human-level cognition. It isn't a
consideration. Now exactly what the limits are, we don't know. But with God,
all bets are off. His son rose from the dead, and that is the promise to us
too.
>You "find out if you were
>right or were wrong" after you die? If that's true, then you should be
>able to make decisions, because you're still cognizant, according to
>what you said. So, in theory, one ought to be able to repent at that
>point, no?
Nope, judgment comes at the moment of your earthly death. You're judged by your
time while in the flesh. Be a bad boy now and God will grant you continued bad
boy benefits for all eternity.
>Maybe I'm just confused here. I know you have an advanced degree in
>Sunday School theology and all, so please go slowly for us who don't
>
>have your extensive background in the magical mysteries of religious
>superstition.
Me? A degree in Sunday school Theology? Hardly, I'm a Roman Catholic.
>> duke, American-American Idiot-Idiot
>> *****
>> "The Ass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>> Pope Paul LXIX
Hmmm, you better go to confession before you die.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Scott Richter
> >You got that almost right. One day you too will die, then nothing.
>
> But why would anyone believe that/you? You can't even begin to
> support such a wild idea.
What a truly BIZARRE idea: "when you die, you're dead!" What kind of
nutcase would say something like THAT? It blows my mind just trying to
THINK about it!
> duke, American-American Idiot-Idiot
> *****
> "The Ass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul LXIX
> *****
Scott Richter
> The next life has nothing to do with human-level cognition. It isn't a
> consideration. Now exactly what the limits are, we don't know. But with God,
> all bets are off. His son rose from the dead, and that is the promise to us
> too.
Do you ever read the word salad you write? Do you actually think anyone
with more than a seventh grade education believes your pseudo-scientific
gibberish?
> Nope, judgment comes at the moment of your earthly death. You're judged
> by your time while in the flesh. Be a bad boy now and God will grant you
> continued bad boy benefits for all eternity.
As I've told you before, for scare tactics to work, the person at whom
the threat is directed has to believe it. It doesn't work if only you
believe the fairy tales about ogres and witches.
> Sunday school Theology? Hardly, I'm a Roman Catholic.
And the difference would be...?
> Hmmm, you better go to confession before you die.
Now why the fuck would I do that? For *your* benefit? Are you really so
simpleminded as to not understand that most of the world neither knows
nor cares about your superhero action figure on a cross?
> duke, American-American Idiot-Idiot
> *****
> "The Ass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul LXIX
> *****
sue...@hotmail.com
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2006 10:25:04 -0700, "drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Uncle Vic wrote:
> >> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Truth Hunter (hunter1234222
> >> @yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
> >>
> >> > God is responsible for the death of Jesus
> >>
> >> parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters.
> >
> >I agree with you that they are not real. However, there are over a
> >billion people who believe they are. Poking holes in the mythology by
> >pointing out logical inconsistencies is a very effective way to make
> >some of those billion ask themselves questions. It in no way means that
> >the poster is delusional. You obviously aren't the sharpest tack in the
> >box because you think it does.
>
> Nobody would "poke holes" in it if they didn't (a) rub it in our faces
> and (b) insist it be taken seriously.
>
> You're obviously not the sharpest tack in the box because you can't
> grasp that.
Sorry, kind of forgot about this thread. Your reply makes no sense
whatsoever.
>
> >They're not
> >> real. Talking about them as if they are is delusional.
sue...@hotmail.com
Uncle Vic wrote:
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet drahcir
> (sue...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> >
> > Uncle Vic wrote:
> >> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Truth Hunter
> >> (hunter1234222 @yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
> >>
> >> > God is responsible for the death of Jesus
> >>
> >> Like Lord Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry Potter's
> >> parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters.
> >
> > I agree with you that they are not real. However, there are over a
> > billion people who believe they are. Poking holes in the mythology by
> > pointing out logical inconsistencies is a very effective way to make
> > some of those billion ask themselves questions. It in no way means
> > that the poster is delusional.
>
> characters are real is indeed delusional behavior.
Do you think the poster is convincing others that storybook characters
are real? Do you think that a shrink who delves into a psychotic's
mindset by discussing his delusions is delusional? You are so stupid
you give atheists a bad name.
>
> > You obviously aren't the sharpest tack in the
> > box because you think it does.
> >
>
> Thank you for your opinion.
You are obviously too stupid for it to do you any good.
sue...@hotmail.com
Denis Loubet wrote:
> "drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155489904.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Uncle Vic wrote:
> >> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Truth Hunter (hunter1234222
> >> @yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
> >>
> >> > God is responsible for the death of Jesus
> >>
> >> Like Lord Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry Potter's
> >> parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters.
> >
> > I agree with you that they are not real. However, there are over a
> > billion people who believe they are. Poking holes in the mythology by
> > pointing out logical inconsistencies is a very effective way to make
> > some of those billion ask themselves questions. It in no way means that
> > the poster is delusional.
>
>
> It takes belief to be delusional.
>
> Granting a premise for the sake of argument is NOT delusional.
Thank you. A reasonable person in our midst. I was beginning to think
that they had gone out of style.
>
> --
> Denis Loubet
> dlo...@io.com
> http://www.io.com/~dloubet
> http://www.ashenempires.com
sue...@hotmail.com
duke wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2006 12:40:27 -0700, "drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> One day you too will die, then judgment.
> >You got that almost right. One day you too will die, then nothing.
>
> But why would anyone believe that/you? You can't even begin to support such a
> wild idea.
I don't have to support it. I have no evidence to contradict it. Learn
to use the brain that you think your god gave you.
sue...@hotmail.com
Scott Richter wrote:
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > >You got that almost right. One day you too will die, then nothing.
> >
> > But why would anyone believe that/you? You can't even begin to
> > support such a wild idea.
>
> What a truly BIZARRE idea: "when you die, you're dead!" What kind of
> nutcase would say something like THAT? It blows my mind just trying to
> THINK about it!
:-)
sue...@hotmail.com
Uncle Vic wrote:
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet drahcir
> (sue...@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> >
> > Uncle Vic wrote:
> >> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Truth Hunter
> >> (hunter1234222 @yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
> >>
> >> > God is responsible for the death of Jesus
> >>
> >> Like Lord Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry Potter's
> >> parents. God and Jesus are mythical storybook characters.
> >
> > I agree with you that they are not real. However, there are over a
> > billion people who believe they are. Poking holes in the mythology by
> > pointing out logical inconsistencies is a very effective way to make
> > some of those billion ask themselves questions. It in no way means
> > that the poster is delusional.
>
Uncle Vic
> Do you think the poster is convincing others that storybook characters
> are real? Do you think that a shrink who delves into a psychotic's
> mindset by discussing his delusions is delusional? You are so stupid
> you give atheists a bad name.
I made a mistake, OK bitch? Thank you all for pointing it out to me. I am
now less stupid. Geez.
Oh, and <plonk>
duke
wrote:
>What a truly BIZARRE idea: "when you die, you're dead!" What kind of
>nutcase would say something like THAT? It blows my mind just trying to
>THINK about it!
Your body sure dies. But you know that amazing God almighty fellow, creator of
the heavens and the universe, he can bring us back to anything he wants.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>> >> One day you too will die, then judgment.
>> >You got that almost right. One day you too will die, then nothing.
>> But why would anyone believe that/you? You can't even begin to support such a
>> wild idea.
>I don't have to support it. I have no evidence to contradict it. Learn
>to use the brain that you think your god gave you.
Are you suggesting that our God, the one that places 50% of the human equation
in men and 50% in females, and allows us to mix the prearranged chemicals in a
most pleasurable act of love, cannot do as he wills with us after our meekly
human bodies die off?
What was that you claimed about your lacking a brain?
duke
wrote:
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> The next life has nothing to do with human-level cognition. It isn't a
>> consideration. Now exactly what the limits are, we don't know. But with God,
>> all bets are off. His son rose from the dead, and that is the promise to us
>> too.
>Do you ever read the word salad you write? Do you actually think anyone
>with more than a seventh grade education believes your pseudo-scientific
>gibberish?
I believe what I wrote beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Don't you realize that God became man in the person of Jesus to die on the cross
for our redemption from sin and to restore salvation to our souls. And that his
resurrection is our promise just as he did?
You're not a Christian, are you?
>> Nope, judgment comes at the moment of your earthly death. You're judged
>> by your time while in the flesh. Be a bad boy now and God will grant you
>> continued bad boy benefits for all eternity.
>As I've told you before, for scare tactics to work, the person at whom
>the threat is directed has to believe it. It doesn't work if only you
>believe the fairy tales about ogres and witches.
I can't only lead you to your salvation, you must drink on your own.
>> Sunday school Theology? Hardly, I'm a Roman Catholic.
>And the difference would be...?
I'm not surprised at your lack of understanding.
>> Hmmm, you better go to confession before you die.
>Now why the fuck would I do that? For *your* benefit? Are you really so
>simpleminded as to not understand that most of the world neither knows
>nor cares about your superhero action figure on a cross?
Your eternal salvation.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
The Chief Instigator
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:51:25 -0700, scottri...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter)
>wrote:
>>What a truly BIZARRE idea: "when you die, you're dead!" What kind of
>>nutcase would say something like THAT? It blows my mind just trying to
>>THINK about it!
>Your body sure dies. But you know that amazing God almighty fellow, creator
>of the heavens and the universe, he can bring us back to anything he wants.
If that's what you believe, you might want to ask him/her/it/them why
s/he/it/they forgot to give you a working mind, Earl...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
RIP Irene Aldridge Compton
December 2, 1909, Keokee, Va.
August 24, 2006, Benham, Ky.
Scott Richter
> Don't you realize that God became man in the person of Jesus to die on the
> cross for our redemption from sin and to restore salvation to our souls.
Like I said, a superhero action figure on a stick...
> I can't only lead you to your salvation, you must drink on your own.
If you drink too much Koolaid, it will only rot your teeth and make you
more likely to develop adult diabetes.
> duke, American-American Idiot-Idiot
> *****
> "The Ass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul LXIX
> *****
duke
wrote:
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Don't you realize that God became man in the person of Jesus to die on the
>> cross for our redemption from sin and to restore salvation to our souls.
>Like I said, a superhero action figure on a stick...
It's still our only salvation.
>> I can't only lead you to your salvation, you must drink on your own.
>If you drink too much Koolaid, it will only rot your teeth and make you
>more likely to develop adult diabetes.
There is no tooth decay in heaven.
>> duke, American-American Idiot-Idiot
Thank you, thank you, and infinitely more intelligent than you.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Scott Richter
> >> Don't you realize that God became man in the person of Jesus to die on the
> >> cross for our redemption from sin and to restore salvation to our souls.
>
> >Like I said, a superhero action figure on a stick...
>
> It's still our only salvation.
So..... Your only salvation is a fictional character from an ancient
science fiction novel?
> >> I can't only lead you to your salvation, you must drink on your own.
> >If you drink too much Koolaid, it will only rot your teeth and make you
> >more likely to develop adult diabetes.
>
> There is no tooth decay in heaven.
How about hell? (Oh, wait, I remember you already covered this. Heaven
has good health insurance, hell does not. Check.)
> duke, American-American Idiot-Idiot
> *****
> "The Ass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul LXIX
> *****
duke
wrote:
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> >> Don't you realize that God became man in the person of Jesus to die on the
>> >> cross for our redemption from sin and to restore salvation to our souls.
>>
>> >Like I said, a superhero action figure on a stick...
>>
>> It's still our only salvation.
>
>So..... Your only salvation is a fictional character from an ancient
>science fiction novel?
We call him the Lord, and yes, he is the only way, and very real.
> >> I can't only lead you to your salvation, you must drink on your own.
>> >If you drink too much Koolaid, it will only rot your teeth and make you
>> >more likely to develop adult diabetes.
>> There is no tooth decay in heaven.
>How about hell? (Oh, wait, I remember you already covered this. Heaven
>has good health insurance, hell does not. Check.)
No, there's no tooth decay in heaven.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****