Thank You Jesus
dh
the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
and went through what the Bible describes to us then
I say:
Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
I pray, amen.
cact...@gmail.com
Why the cross-post? Do I smell a troll about?
Santolina chamaecyparissus
I am a weak atheist regarding the existence of Qumkwat, an almighty
deity who grants eternal bliss to everybody EXCEPT worshippers of
Yahweh, who are cast into everlasting torment. However, just in case
Qumkwat really exists, I pray:
Dear Lord Qumkwat, thank you for your saving grace, and forgive me my
worship of G-d when I was but a child, for you are the One, the True,
the Everlasting. In the name of your precious nephew Muntala I pray,
Amen.
jemcd
And why only address jebus? Where is the thousands of other possible
gods? If you are going to cowardly hedge your god-bet, I'd think you
should whimper to every one of them, the one you leave out may be the
"one true" god.
Andres64
Bill M
<dh@.> wrote in message news:mgf2u4hflqvh3g06v...@4ax.com...
> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
> I say:
The foundation of all Christian and Jewish religions is based on the Bibles
and the bibles are a foundation of quick sand.
There is NO - NADA _evidence the Bibles are the word of any Gods. They are
no more than the words of hundreds of errant religious leaders motivated to
impress and control their flock.
One of the problems with the accuracy of the Bibles is that when they were
copied over two thousand years ago, no marks of punctuation were used, no
distinction was made between lower case and upper case letters and more
bizarre to modern script, no spaces were used to separate words.
This kind of continuous writing was called "scriptuo continua"
'godisnowhere' could mean 'god is now here' or quit the opposite, 'god is no
where' depending on the spacing which was not used at the time. This left
accurate interpretation very unlikely if not impossible.
It is believed that the foundation of the Christian religion, civilization
and morality is the Good Book. This is patently ridiculous because the
Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, human
and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction.
There are 66 or more 'claimed original authors'. There are NO original
copies of the Bibles in existence. They are all ALTERED hand copies of
copies of copies etc. by hundreds of scribes over a period of thousands of
years. There is no accurate objective way to determine their authenticity or
historical accuracy.
The Bibles quite obviously contain mostly myths, fables, legends.
contradictions and totally impossible tales. NONE of the Bibles were written
during Jesus' 'CLAIMED LIFE TIME'. Time and distance was required to allow
the creation of fictional stories and the embellishment of history.
There is also the matter of the Biblical canon itself. After all, ancient
Israel and the early church knew of many more religious books than the ones
that now constitute the Bible. For example, there were 50 gospels in
circulation at the time the New Testaments were chosen by church leaders,
yet only four
made it into the New Testament. Who decided which of the books would
become part of the Christian scriptures, and again, "Why?" Who decided,
"This book belongs... this book doesn't..."? What were their reasons?
What were their motives? How do we know if ANY of them were authentic?
In addition there is evidence that the Bibles were altered by church leaders
to support their personal motives and ambitions..
The fact is, there are no clear records available which document the
church's process of determining which books were acceptable and which books
were unacceptable and why. The general consensus of opinion among scholars
is that the decision was based on whether or not the book agreed with the
prevailing theological thought and motives at the time. In other words, the
only books accepted were the ones that agreed with the opinions, desires and
motives of the church leadership at the time
This means that the fundamental religion is not based on the Bibles, as they
claim so fervently... it means the Bibles were selected and embellished to
support the claims of the church leadership at the time.
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New
Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts"
By Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
In the ancient past Biblical scholars were largely affiliated
with and supportive of a religious organization. They were
prone to interpret scriptures to support their religious organizations
power and strength.
Many scholars today are unencumbered by and unaffiliated with
any religious organizations. As a result they are unearthing more
realistic and authentic interpretations of Biblical ancient documents.
Finkelstein is an iconoclast. He
established his reputation in part by developing a
theory about the settlement patterns of the nomadic
shepherd tribes who would eventually become the
Israelites, bolstering the growing consensus that
they were originally indistinguishable from the rest
of their neighbors, the Canaanites. This overturns
a key element in the Bible: The Old Testament depicts
the Israelites as superior outsiders -- descended
from Abraham, a Mesopotamian immigrant -- entitled
by divine order to invade Canaan and exterminate
its unworthy, idolatrous inhabitants. The famous
battle of Jericho, with which the Israelites supposedly
launched this campaign of conquest after wandering
for decades in the desert, has been likewise debunked:
The city of Jericho didn't exist at that time and
had no walls to come tumbling down. These assertions
are all pretty much accepted by mainstream
archaeologists.
A group of European biblical
scholars, sometimes called the Copenhagen School,
who have insisted that since there is, to their
minds, so little corroborative evidence supporting
the stories in the Old Testament, the scriptures
should be regarded as a collection of legends, myths and fables.
Figures like David and Solomon are considered "no more
historical than King Arthur."
Eventually, as archaeological methods improved
and biblical scholars analyzed the text itself for
inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of the
Bible regarded as historically verifiable rapidly eroded.
The honeymoon was over.
It is also interesting that, even though the Biblical canon was purposely
chosen to include only books that met the church leaders opinions at the
time, there is so much inconsistency and contradictions in the Bibles. And
it is even more interesting that so many fundamentalists proclaim that there
are no contradictions in the Bible! If that were true, then why are there
thousands of different sects of Christianity and 20 different English
versions of the Bibles?
For example, Christianity is basically divided into three main sects: the
Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Protestants. And the
Protestant branch alone is divided into numerous different sects: the
Adventists, the Amish, the Anglican Church, the Apostolic Faith, the
Assemblies of God, the Baptists, the Brethren, the Christian Church, the
Church of Christ, the Church of God, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints (the Mormons), the Church of the Nazarene, the Congregational
Christian Churches, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Congregational
Church, the Friends (Quakers), the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Lutherans, the
Mennonites, the Methodists, the Pentecostal Churches, the Presbyterians, the
Salvation Army, the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, and at least 66
other sects!
And that does not count the different sub-sects of these prime sects! For
example, the Baptists are further divided into: the American Baptist
Convention, the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Baptist
Association, the Baptist General Conference, the Bethel Baptist Assembly,
the Christian Unity Baptist Association, the Conservative Baptist
Association of America, the Baptist Church of Christ, the Free Will
Baptists... and at least 19 other sub-sects. And there are no "minor
differences" between these sub-sects. For example, the Southern Baptist
Association was formed in 1845 in large part
because of disagreements with other Baptists concerning slavery.
The other Protestant sects are also broken up into various sub-sects. For
example, the Methodists have 23, the Mennonites 15; the Presbyterians 9; the
Mormons 3; etc.
And yet (especially for the more right-wing sects), these numerous sects and
sub-sects claim to possess the truth of the Bible in its purest form... and
each one are able to quote verses from the Bible to prove it! The Bibles are
so loaded with vague stories and unsubstantiated claims that one can find
texts to support almost ANYTHING. So much for the "harmony" of the Bible.
Anyone that reads the Bibles objectively can see that they are books of
fables, myths, legends and totally impossible tales. They are certainly not
the word of any god unless he was an absolute idiot.
Believing in the Bibles is not much better than believing in Alice in
Wonderland, Harry Potter or Aesop's Fables. At least the latter are good
fiction.
The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;
that man created gods!
haj...@zappo.com
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/jews-muslims.html
And this from Israeli archeologist below - but understand that such
religions did serve a strategic purpose, if seen from evolutionary
eyes.
TEXT SOURCE:
<http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/
who_are_the_Jews.htm>
Deconstructing the walls of Jericho: Who are the Jews?
By Ze'ev Herzog (Ha'aretz Magazine, Friday, October 29, 1999)
Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel,
archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary,
the
Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not
conquer
the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and
Solomon,
nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have
been
known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to
hear
about it
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the
Land
of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the
desert,
did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on
to
the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact
that the
united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible
as a
regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come
as an
unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a
female
consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only
in the
waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those
who are
engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible,
archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went
into
the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree
that
the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's
emergence
are radically different from what that story tells.
In a September 22nd, 2002 speech to visiting Christian Zionists,
Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asserted, "This land is ours... God gave
us the
title deeds..." However, recent scholarly research, including
discoveries by
an archaeological team from the University of Tel Aviv, not only
deconstruct
the Biblical Old Testament and Torah stories upon which this claim
rests,
but grant previously unthinkable credence to an ancient historian's
claim
that the Israelites of Exodus were actually the Hyksos, and therefore
of
Asiatic origin.
To trace the foundations of this ongoing Biblical bonfire, we must go
back
to 1999.
All hell broke loose in Israel in November of that year when Prof.
Ze'ev
Herzog of Tel Aviv University announced: "the Israelites were never
in
Egypt, did not wander the desert, did not conquer the land, and did
not pass
it on to the twelve tribes". Moreover, the Jewish God YHWH had a
female
consort - the goddess Asherah!
His conclusion that the kingdom of David and Solomon was at best a
small
tribal monarchy, at worst total myth, has made enemies for him in the
camps
of traditional Jewish and Christian belief systems. He asserts: all
evidence
demonstrates that the Jews did not adopt monotheism until the 7th
Century
BCE - a heresy according to the Biblical tradition dating it to Moses
at
Mount Sinai.
Tel Aviv University's archaeological investigation at Megiddo and
examination of the six-sided gate there dates it to the 9th Century
BCE, not
the 10th Century BCE claimed by the 1960's investigator Yigael Yadin
who
attributed it to Solomon. Herzog, moreover, states that Solomon and
David
are "entirely absent in the archaeological record".
In addition, Herzog's colleague, Israel Finkelstein, claims the Jews
were
nothing more than nomadic Canaanites who bartered with the city
dwellers.
The team's studies concluded that Jerusalem did not have any central
status
until 722 BCE with the destruction of its northern rival Samaria.
However, the real bombshell is Herzog's discovery of numerous
references to
Yahweh having a consort in the form of Asherah. Inscriptions, written
in
Hebrew by official Jewish scribes in the 8th century BCE, were found
in
numerous sites all over the land. For Yahweh, supposedly the "One
God", to
have had a female consort and, of all people, the goddess Asherah, is
dynamite of wide ranging significance.
But what does all this do to the validity of the "Title Deeds" from
God that
Ariel Sharon refers to? Quite apart from the obvious conclusion that
the god
assumed to have given the "promised land" to his chosen people was
just one
god from a pantheon and not the alleged monotheistic only God of the
cosmos,
Herzog's findings corroborate theories that have been "out there" for
some
time.
The Hyksos
Like Herzog, the historian Josephus (c. 37CE - c. 100CE) denied the
account
of the Hebrews being held in captivity in Egypt, but he went a drastic
step
further about the racial origins of the Jews, whom he identified with
the
Hyksos. He further claimed they did not flee from Egypt but were
evicted due
to them being leprous.
It must be said that Josephus has been vilified over the ages as a
Roman
collaborator by both Jewish and Christian scholars who have argued
that the
dating of the exodus of the "Hebrews" from Egypt in the Bible
positively
rules out their identification as Hyksos.
However, Jan Assmann, a prominent Egyptologist at Heidelberg
University, is
quite positive in his writings that the Exodus story is an inversion
of the
Hyksos expulsion and furthermore that Moses was an Egyptian.
Likewise, Donald P. Redford, of Toronto University, presents striking
evidence that the Expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt was inverted to
construct the exodus of the Hebrew slaves story in the Torah and Old
Testament. His book, which argued this theory, "Egypt, Canaan, and
Israel in
Ancient Times" was Winner of the 1993 Best Scholarly Book in
Archaeology
Award of the Biblical Archaeological Society.
There is irrefutable evidence that the Hyksos, a mixed Semitic-Asiatic
group
who infiltrated the Nile valley, seized power in Lower Egypt in the
17th
Century BCE. They ruled there from c. 1674 BCE until expelled when
their
capital, Avaris, fell to Ahmose around 1567 BCE.
The Hyksos in Egypt worshipped Set, who like ISH.KUR they identified
as a
storm deity.
Under the "inversion theory", Jewish scholars in the 7th Century BCE
changed
the story from "expelled" to "escaped" and as a further insult to
their
enemy, Ahmose, changed and miss-spelt his name to Moses, presenting
him as
leader of a Hebrew revolt. But there is also a strong possibility of
two
separate origins to the "Moses" character being merged into one, which
I
will come to later.
Ahmose's success in 1567 BCE led to the establishment of the 18th
Dynasty in
Egypt. ThotMoses III overthrew the transvestite Pharaoh Atchepsut, and
under
ThotMoses IV Egyptian conquests extended beyond the Sinai into
Palestine,
Syria, reaching Babylonia and included Canaan.
By the end of this expansion, Amenophis III (1380BCE) ruled an
Egyptian
empire whose provinces and colonies bordered what is now known as
Turkey.
This empire would have included the regions in which most of the
expelled
Hyksos now lived.
Amenophis IV succeeded the throne in 1353BCE. He established a new
monotheism cult establishing "Aten" as the one supreme god and he
changed
his name to Akhenaton. Married to the mysterious Nefertiti, Akhenaton
declared himself a god on earth, intermediary between the one-god Aten
(Ra)
and humanity, with his spouse as partner, effectively displacing Isis
and
Osiris in the Egyptian Enead.
Declaring all men to be the children of Aten, historians suspect
Akhenaton
planned an empire-wide religion. He banned all idolatry, the use of
images
to represent god, and banned the idea that there was more than one
supreme
god.
It is alongside Akhenaton and his father Amenophis III that we find
the
second Moses.
An important figure during this period was confusingly called
Amenophis son
of Hapu. He was First Minister (Vizier) to both kings. He is
generally
depicted as a scribe, crouching and holding on his knees a roll of
papyrus.
He more than anyone was responsible for authoring the religion in
which the
old gods were merged into one living god, Aten, who had been
responsible for
the creation of the Earth and of humanity.
The symbol of this god, the sun disk, represented Ra, Horus and the
other
gods in one. The sun disk, in symbolism, was supported between the
horns of
a bull. The Son of Hapu says this about creation: "I have come to you
who
reigns over the gods oh Amon, Lord of the Two Lands, for you are Re
who
appears in the sky, who illuminates the earth with a brilliantly
shining
eye, who came out of the Nou, who appeared above the primitive water,
who
created everything, who generated the great Enneade of the gods, who
created
his own flesh and gave birth to his own form."
The king's overseer of the land of Nubia was a certain Mermose
(spelled both
Mermose and Merymose on his sarcophagus in the British Museum).
According to
modern historians, in Amenhotep's third year as king, Mermose took his
army
far up the Nile, supposedly to quell a minor rebellion, but actually
to
secure gold mining territories which would supply his king with the
greatest
wealth of any ruler of Egypt.
Recent scholarship has indicated Mermose took his army to the
neighborhood
of the confluence of the Nile and Atbara Rivers and beyond.
But who was this Mermose? According to historian Dawn Breasted, the
Greek
translation of this name was Moses. Does Jewish tradition support
this
identification?
According to Jewish history not included in the Bible, Moses led the
army of
Pharaoh to the South, into the land of Kush, and reached the vicinity
of the
Atbara River. There he attracted the love of the princess of the
fortress
city of Saba, later Meroe. She gave up the city in exchange for
marriage.
Biblical confirmation of such a marriage is to be found in Numbers
12:1.
"And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian
woman
whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman."
.."And 'ALHYM' myhla spake unto 'MSHH' hAZsm Moses, and said
unto him,
I am 'YHWH' hvhy: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto
Jacob,
by the name of 'AL SHDY' yrs la, but by my name 'YHWH' hvhy was I NOT
known
to them"...
-EXODUS 6: 2-3
The archaeology of the Land of Israel is completing a process that
amounts
to a scientific revolution in its field. It is ready to confront the
findings of biblical scholarship and of ancient history. But at the
same
time, we are witnessing a fascinating phenomenon in which all this is
simply
ignored by the Israeli public. Many of the findings mentioned here
have been
known for decades. The professional literature in the spheres of
archaeology, Bible and the history of the Jewish people has addressed
them
in dozens of books and hundreds of articles. Even if not all the
scholars
accept the individual arguments that inform the examples I cited, the
majority have adopted their main points.
Nevertheless, these revolutionary views are not penetrating the
public
consciousness. About a year ago, my colleague, the historian Prof.
Nadav
Ne'eman, published an article in the Culture and Literature section
of
Ha'aretz entitled "To Remove the Bible from the Jewish Bookshelf," but
there
was no public outcry. Any attempt to question the reliability of the
biblical descriptions is perceived as an attempt to undermine "our
historic
right to the land" and as shattering the myth of the nation that is
renewing
the ancient Kingdom of Israel. These symbolic elements constitute such
a
critical component of the construction of the Israeli identity that
any
attempt to call their veracity into question encounters hostility or
silence. It is of some interest that such tendencies within the
Israeli
secular society go hand-in-hand with the outlook among educated
Christian
groups. I have found a similar hostility in reaction to lectures I
have
delivered abroad to groups of Christian bible lovers, though what
upset them
was the challenge to the foundations of their fundamentalist
religious
belief.
It turns out that part of Israeli society is ready to recognize the
injustice that was done to the Arab inhabitants of the country and is
willing to accept the principle of equal rights for women - but is not
up to
adopting the archaeological facts that shatter the biblical myth. The
blow
to the mythical foundations of the Israeli identity is apparently too
threatening, and it is more convenient to turn a blind eye.
Ha'aretz., October 29, 1999
On Apr 12, 10:31 am, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:mgf2u4hflqvh3g06v...@4ax.com...
merli...@gmail.com
who self describes themselves like this?
this is a put down of someone, not a confession
> That being the case
the case that this was written by a serial insulter? you bet.
> I consider
why not experience. we have so many people claiming they know
god.....
when we can see it in the writting when there is connection.
a lack of love is a good sign god is not present.
> the possibility of God's existence,
why not show us your connection.
> and if God does exist
it doesn't matter IF god exists when no christians actions can be said
like onto Jesus teaching even.
> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
what does god say directly?
> I say:
god is not ego oriented. when you separate yourself from us, with an
'i' you are no longer attempting brotherhood.
> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
> help me to be acceptable to you.
everyone is acceptable to god. it is men that segregate not god.
> Through Jesus Christ
we are all christs, that is why we are called christians.
> I pray, amen.
you mean you preach? LOL.
love and god will love what you love.
hate and you hate alone.
in love with the living gay Jesus,
Merlin
SkyEyes
Lying For Jesus, are we? If you're a weak agnostic, then I'm a
virgin.
<Eyeroll>
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
chibiabos
> I am a moron.
There. Fixed it for you.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
flower of romance
<dh@.> wrote in message news:mgf2u4hflqvh3g06v...@4ax.com...
Enuff said. Christians, Moslems, Satanists, Pagans and Atheists alike.
Ignore the above individual. he is a troll and not a very clever one.
guardian Snow
Hos 4:6 “My people have perished for lack of knowledge.
You were always acceptable even without his Messiah Yehoshua, rather,
you just didn't know him. Most people put forward the wrong theology
that you die because of judgment against you and this is not true.
Yahweh does not destroy you.
Deu 4:29 “But from there you shall seek יהוה your Elohim, and shall
find, when you search for Him with all your heart1 and with all your
being. Footnote: 1Jer. 29:13.
Deu 4:30 “In your distress, when all these words shall come upon you
in the latter days, then you shall return to יהוה your Elohim and
shall obey His voice.
Deu 4:31 “For יהוה your Elohim is a compassionate Ěl, He does not
forsake you, nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers
which He swore to them.
Yahweh tells us his law is compassion for his people. We do not die
because we are unforgiven...
Psa 7:11 Elohim is a righteous judge. And Ěl is enraged every day,
Psa 7:12 If one does not repent! He sharpens His sword, He bends His
bow and makes it ready,
Psa 7:13 And He has prepared for Himself instruments of death, He
makes His arrows hot for pursuers.
Psa 7:14 See, he who is bound with wickedness, And has conceived
trouble and brought forth falsehood,
Psa 7:15 He has made a pit and dug it out, And falls into the ditch he
made!
People die because they continue to transgress the law of Creator,
Yahweh.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join this message
board to respond
Although images of perfection in people's personal lives can cause
unhappiness, images of perfect societies - utopian images - can cause
monstrous evil. In fact, forcefully changing society to conform to
societal images was the greatest cause of evil in the twentieth
century.
Dennis Prager
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/shalom.mp3 free music
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/THE+BOOK+OF+JUBILEES.zip
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/Music_-_Kerry_Alexander_-_B%27nai_Shalom.mp3
Nuns Fart
"guardian Snow" <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote in message
news:cd737556-75af-4052...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 12, 11:05 am, dh@. wrote:
> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
> I say:
>
> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
> I pray, amen.
Hos 4:6 "My people have perished for lack of knowledge.
You were always acceptable even without his Messiah Yehoshua, rather,
you just didn't know him. Most people put forward the wrong theology
that you die because of judgment against you and this is not true.
Yahweh does not destroy you.
Deu 4:29 "But from there you shall seek ???? your Elohim, and shall
find, when you search for Him with all your heart1 and with all your
being. Footnote: 1Jer. 29:13.
Deu 4:30 "In your distress, when all these words shall come upon you
in the latter days, then you shall return to ???? your Elohim and
shall obey His voice.
Deu 4:31 "For ???? your Elohim is a compassionate El, He does not
forsake you, nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers
which He swore to them.
Yahweh tells us his law is compassion for his people. We do not die
because we are unforgiven...
Psa 7:11 Elohim is a righteous judge. And El is enraged every day,
Psa 7:12 If one does not repent! He sharpens His sword, He bends His
bow and makes it ready,
Psa 7:13 And He has prepared for Himself instruments of death, He
makes His arrows hot for pursuers.
Psa 7:14 See, he who is bound with wickedness, And has conceived
trouble and brought forth falsehood,
Psa 7:15 He has made a pit and dug it out, And falls into the ditch he
made!
People die because they continue to transgress the law of Creator,
Yahweh.
Shalom,
*ดจ)
ธ..ด ธ..*ดจ) ธ..*จ)
(ธ..ด (ธ.. (Snow(.ธ..*ดจ)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join this message
board to respond
Although images of perfection in people's personal lives can cause
unhappiness, images of perfect societies - utopian images - can cause
monstrous evil. In fact, forcefully changing society to conform to
societal images was the greatest cause of evil in the twentieth
century.
Dennis Prager
Jonny : 14:04:2009
"Behold the almighty, he sayeth unto all others - be not afraid", and they
were not.
"Giveth of thyself and be free"
" 'Tis not of the Father"
"Be thy bold my son, walk amongst men"
"Shite in thine pants and walk askew"
"Thine ist not the kingdom but the mighty shall reign"
......... isn't it amazing how one can make up any old crap sentence and it
sound like something from the bible?!
Yap
Go and pray every day and every minute of your life.
This world don't need any one with such a weak mind.
Yap
Outside your mind, these are your imagination that you think can
affect others....
But the fact is, others do not care about your imagination.
>
> Shalom,
> *´¨)
> ¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
> (¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua<-- join this message
> board to respond
>
> Although images of perfection in people's personal lives can cause
> unhappiness, images of perfect societies - utopian images - can cause
> monstrous evil. In fact, forcefully changing society to conform to
> societal images was the greatest cause of evil in the twentieth
> century.
> Dennis Prager
>
> download of the Restored Names King James Versionhttp://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/shalom.mp3free musichttp://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/THE+BOOK+OF+JUBILEES.ziphttp://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/Music_-_Kerry_Alexander...
guardian Snow
> But the fact is, others do not care about your imagination.
When I'm posting to you, you'll know it but since I wasn't, the
feeling is mutual or did you think I cared about your imagination?
Hardly. I wish you well but really, I wonder why you think it's worth
the time, don't you have better things to do then worry about what I
imagine?
Go cry about Santa Clause now and the Easter Bunny... Oh, that's
right, they are fictional, so why waste your efforts on something you
know is imagination instead of something you have no proof of....
dh
If you think about it realistically you might figure out
that if God does exist then everyone who refers to him
is referring to the same being regardless of what they
call him or what they think about him. Then again, if
you can't think about it realistically as no strong atheists
are able to do, then there's no telling what sort of weird
and clueless notions you might invent.
dh
>On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
>> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
>> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
>> I say:
>>
>> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
>> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
>> I pray, amen.
>
>I am a weak atheist regarding the existence of Qumkwat, an almighty
>deity who grants eternal bliss to everybody EXCEPT worshippers of
>Yahweh, who are cast into everlasting torment. However, just in case
>Qumkwat really exists, I pray:
>
>Dear Lord Qumkwat, thank you for your saving grace, and forgive me my
>worship of G-d when I was but a child,
You finally realised you weren't thinking about him in
a realistic way, and so you decided he must not exist
instead of learning how to think about the possibility
realistically. You took the easier road...one which your
brain might be up to not trying to deal with...
>for you are the One, the True,
>the Everlasting. In the name of your precious nephew Muntala I pray,
>Amen.
It's not at all realistic to think God wouldn't know who's
praying to him, so we see you still can't think about the
possibility of his existence in a realistic way.
dh
>On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
>> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
>> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
>> I say:
>>
>> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
>> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
>> I pray, amen.
>
>Lying For Jesus, are we?
Maybe you are but I have no reason to, so I'm not.
>If you're a weak agnostic, then I'm a virgin.
>
><Eyeroll>
Then you're a virgin...or you're being dishonest about it...
dh
Happy Easter to you too.
dh
>On Apr 11, 9:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> I am a weak agnostic.
>
>who self describes themselves like this?
Weak agnostics and people who want other people
to believe they are.
>this is a put down of someone, not a confession
It's just a fact that you apparently don't like for
whatever reason(s).
>> That being the case
>
>the case that this was written by a serial insulter? you bet.
Though I have been known to be insulting, I'm almost
never as insulting as people deserve.
>> I consider
>
>why not experience. we have so many people claiming they know
>god.....
>when we can see it in the writting when there is connection.
Huh?
>a lack of love is a good sign god is not present.
Not to me. It has nothing to do with it, afawk.
>> the possibility of God's existence,
>
>why not show us your connection.
To what?
>> and if God does exist
>
>it doesn't matter IF god exists when no christians actions can be said
>like onto Jesus teaching even.
I disbelieve you that it doesn't matter if God exists.
>> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
>
>what does god say directly?
Who knows?
>> I say:
>
>god is not ego oriented. when you separate yourself from us, with an
>'i' you are no longer attempting brotherhood.
I refers to the individual. Try to learn to appreciate that
aspect of communication.
>> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
>> help me to be acceptable to you.
>
>everyone is acceptable to god.
Provide reason for anyone to take your word on that.
>it is men that segregate not god.
Men certainly do it, but you don't know whether God
does too or not.
>> Through Jesus Christ
>
>we are all christs,
You're certainly not.
>that is why we are called christians.
>
>> I pray, amen.
>
>you mean you preach?
I prayed.
. . .
>in love with the living gay
No big surprise there I guess.
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:mgf2u4hflqvh3g06v...@4ax.com...
>> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
>> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
>> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
>> I say:
>
>
>
>
>
>The foundation of all Christian and Jewish religions is based on the Bibles
>and the bibles are a foundation of quick sand.
>
>
>
>There is NO - NADA _evidence the Bibles are the word of any Gods. They are
>no more than the words of hundreds of errant religious leaders motivated to
>impress and control their flock.
>
>
>
>One of the problems with the accuracy of the Bibles is that when they were
>copied over two thousand years ago, no marks of punctuation were used, no
>distinction was made between lower case and upper case letters and more
>bizarre to modern script, no spaces were used to separate words.
>
>
>
>This kind of continuous writing was called "scriptuo continua"
>
>'godisnowhere' could mean 'god is now here' or quit the opposite, 'god is no
>where' depending on the spacing which was not used at the time. This left
>accurate interpretation very unlikely if not impossible.
>
>
>
>It is believed that the foundation of the Christian religion, civilization
>and morality is the Good Book. This is patently ridiculous because the
>Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, human
>and animal sacrifices,
Which bibles advocate human sacrifice? The "Satanic Bible"
doesn't even do that afaik...murder yes, but sacrifice no.
>genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
>barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
>certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
>untrustworthy monster.
If God does exist he communicated to those people who believed
as they believed back then. He had to relate to them in ways that
went along with what they believed to the extent that it wouldn't
change things too much, if he didn't want to change things too much.
>They are not even good fiction.
If God had provided them with information they had previously
not had then it would probably have been more evidence of his
existence in later years than he wanted to make available. If he
had told those people things like the Earth is round and not the
center of the Universe, then it may very well have been stronger
evidence of his existence than would allow people to think freely
about the possibility. If he does exist, it seem obvios that he wants
us to have that freedom, most likely because if we didn't have it
we would be like his slaves.
>There are 66 or more 'claimed original authors'. There are NO original
>copies of the Bibles in existence. They are all ALTERED hand copies of
>copies of copies etc. by hundreds of scribes over a period of thousands of
>years. There is no accurate objective way to determine their authenticity or
>historical accuracy.
>
>
>
>The Bibles quite obviously contain mostly myths, fables, legends.
>contradictions and totally impossible tales. NONE of the Bibles were written
>during Jesus' 'CLAIMED LIFE TIME'. Time and distance was required to allow
>the creation of fictional stories and the embellishment of history.
The last I heard the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with later versions.
If you know of areas where they disagree then please share the
info and links.
>There is also the matter of the Biblical canon itself. After all, ancient
>Israel and the early church knew of many more religious books than the ones
>that now constitute the Bible. For example, there were 50 gospels in
>circulation at the time the New Testaments were chosen by church leaders,
>yet only four
>made it into the New Testament. Who decided which of the books would
>become part of the Christian scriptures, and again, "Why?" Who decided,
>"This book belongs... this book doesn't..."? What were their reasons?
>What were their motives? How do we know if ANY of them were authentic?
If God doesn't exist then of course none could be. If he does
exist and he cares what's in his canonical books, then it makes
sense to believe he was able to get them to turn out the way
he wants them whether you can ever appreciate it or not.
>In addition there is evidence that the Bibles were altered by church leaders
>to support their personal motives and ambitions..
Like what evidence?
. . .
>Figures like David and Solomon are considered "no more
>historical than King Arthur."
Then it's amazing that there are pictures of the ruins of
Solomon's temple online, and equally amazing that people
are digging through those ruins still today.
dh
> I am a moron.
>
>-chib
LOL! I don't doubt that.
dh
> I am a troll
You're also dishonest enough to be labeled a liar.
dh
>On Apr 12, 11:05 am, dh@. wrote:
>> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
>> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
>> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
>> I say:
>>
>> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
>> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
>> I pray, amen.
>
>Hos 4:6 “My people have perished for lack of knowledge.
>
>You were always acceptable even without his Messiah Yehoshua, rather,
>you just didn't know him. Most people put forward the wrong theology
>that you die because of judgment against you and this is not true.
>Yahweh does not destroy you.
>
>Deu 4:29 “But from there you shall seek ???? your Elohim, and shall
>find, when you search for Him with all your heart1 and with all your
>being. Footnote: 1Jer. 29:13.
>Deu 4:30 “In your distress, when all these words shall come upon you
>in the latter days, then you shall return to ???? your Elohim and
>shall obey His voice.
>Deu 4:31 “For ???? your Elohim is a compassionate ?l, He does not
>forsake you, nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers
>which He swore to them.
>
>Yahweh tells us his law is compassion for his people. We do not die
>because we are unforgiven...
>
>Psa 7:11 Elohim is a righteous judge. And ?l is enraged every day,
>Psa 7:12 If one does not repent! He sharpens His sword, He bends His
>bow and makes it ready,
>Psa 7:13 And He has prepared for Himself instruments of death, He
>makes His arrows hot for pursuers.
>Psa 7:14 See, he who is bound with wickedness, And has conceived
>trouble and brought forth falsehood,
>Psa 7:15 He has made a pit and dug it out, And falls into the ditch he
>made!
>
>People die because they continue to transgress the law of Creator,
>Yahweh.
>
>
>Shalom,
> *´¨)
> ¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
>(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Ps 34:22 - "The LORD redeems his servants; no one will be condemned
who takes refuge in him."
dh
These people will often display faith that God does not
exist, and encourage it in others. At the same time, amusingly,
these people will often wish to deny the faith they so clearly
display and so clearly are trying to encourage in others.
Sometimes--even more amusingly--they will deny their faith
that Santa and the EB etc do not exist, causing a person
to wonder why they would even WANT people to think they
don't have any. Even more amusingly--and extremely
pathetically--these people will sometimes wish to deny their
faith in EVERYTHING they have faith in. It's fun to test them,
and to tease them about their obvious faith that they're so
amusingly ashamed of...
dh
Weak as it may be it still considers a lot more than
those of you who put faith in and cling to one possibility,
no doubt about that.
flower of romance
<dh@.> wrote in message news:3m6bu49gtsf1fb7u7...@4ax.com...
LOL. Poor DH. tried for so long to persuade us that he wasn't a troll and he
undid all of his efforts with one post. Marvelous.
flower of romance
<dh@.> wrote in message news:li7bu4dfgj72d2ld5...@4ax.com...
Alert! Alert. The troll posted yet again.
guardian Snow
> If you think about it realistically you might figure out
> that if God does exist then everyone who refers to him
> is referring to the same being regardless of what they
> call him or what they think about him. Then again, if
> you can't think about it realistically as no strong atheists
> are able to do, then there's no telling what sort of weird
> and clueless notions you might invent.
I'll take a moment to disagree with you. Not that I wish to
discourage you but so that you don't go down the faulty path the rest
of the world has taken.
What would you do if some devil worshipers told you to praise, “Say
ten”? Would you go around saying “praise SayTen”? Probably not
because you would recognize that “Satan” and “Say Ten” sound the same,
right? I mean, the guy going around isn’t actually praising Satan,
right? Praise SayTen… completely different, right? Please go to your
local church and tell your pastor that you would like to praise
SayTen… let’s see what kind of reaction you get.
Rev 13:9 If anyone has an ear, let him hear.
Have you ever asked yourself, why it says, “let him hear” something
that is written? Because he is talking about the words you speak out
loud, not what is written.
The greatest lie of scriptures is the most simply ignored instruction
by both Christian and Jews. Whether out of ignorance, stupidity or
manmade tradition, nobody pays attention to this:
Exo 9:16 “And for this reason I have raised you up, in order to show
you My power, and in order to declare My Name in all the earth.”
Every man of Jewish and Christian faith has failed to keep this
instruction. The majority of all scriptures read:
Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God or I am Hashem Eloheicha
Simply put, that is a lie! It is not written in the Hebrew text and
any person who bothers to examine the truth for the self knows this.
At no point in all of scriptures does it justify removing the name of
YHWH, pronounced “Yahweh”. It should read:
Exo 20:2 “I am [YHWH] יהוה your Elohim”
Yahweh instructs us truthfully by his prophet:
Jer 12:16 And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the
ways of my people, to swear by my name, YHWH liveth; as they taught my
people to swear by *Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of my
people. The following are from Strong’s concordance about Hebrew
words.
*H1167
בּעל
ba‛al
From H1166; a master; hence a husband, or (figuratively) owner (often
used with another noun in modifications of this latter sense: LORD
H1171
בּעל גּד
ba‛al gâd
bah'-al gawd
From H1168 and H1409; Baal of Fortune; Baal Gad
In the Greek text of the New Testament, the “Lord of Fortune” is
called Mammon. Is it any wonder why on every U.S. dollar it reads,
“In God we trust”? Not YHWH and not even the Hebrew name of the
Messiah Yehoshua… Gawd.
Mat 6:24 “No one is able to serve two masters, for either he shall
hate the one and love the other, or else he shall cleave to the one
and despise the other. You are not able to serve Elohim and mammon. 1
Footnote: 1Personification of wealth.
Notice how Ba’al gawd is pronounced Ba’al God? Sayten, Satan… Gawd,
God… no difference in how it’s spoken.
Pro 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue, And those
loving it eat its fruit.
Giving your praise to “Gawd” is Ba’al worship and the church of Sayten
is ruling the world over! “God” is the religion of Freemasonry and it
is why all religions have come to worship the same name.
Rev 13:7 And it was given to him to fight with the set-apart ones and
to overcome them. And authority was given to him over every tribe and
tongue and nation.
If you worship under the false name, you are part of that false
church!
Rev 13:9 If anyone has an ear, let him hear.
If you have an ear, listen to the words, not just read them… LET HIM
HEAR!
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from the heaven saying, “Come out
of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of
her plagues.1 Footnote: 1Jer. 51:6 & 45.
Rev 18:5 “Because her sins have piled up to reach the heaven, and
Elohim has remembered her unrighteousnesses.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join this message
board to respond
And now here is my secret, a very simple secret; it is only with the
heart that one can see rightly, what is essential is invisible to the
eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/shalom.mp3 free music
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/THE+BOOK+OF+JUBILEES.zip
A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
bob young
dh@. wrote:
Christians hold that their faith does good, but other faiths do harm. At any
rate, they hold this about the Communist faith. What I wish to maintain is
that all faiths do harm. We may define 'faith' as a firm belief in something
for which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, no one speaks of
'faith.' We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth
is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for
evidence.
[Bertrand Russell]
bob young
dh@. wrote:
Four 'amusings'. . . . . !! !!
Maybe you will find this amusing . . . . . . . . . :
merli...@gmail.com
> >> I am a weak agnostic.
>
> >who self describes themselves like this?
>
> Weak agnostics and people who want other people
> to believe they are.
Everyone, EVERYONE, that Merlin has ever met speaks well of
themselves.
NO one, no one merlin has ever met would call themselves weak or want
to be pitied like this statement claims.
this is a literary device used by christians to demean others in their
christian eyes.
> >this is a put down of someone, not a confession
>
> It's just a fact that you apparently don't like for
> whatever reason(s).
what is real about it.......?
name some names.
give your personal list of those that are weak.
give us the name of the weak person that wrote this self abusing
letter that is being bandied about?
give us the name of the cruel mean inconsiderate propaganistic
religious pomposity that wrote this even.
> >> That being the case
>
> >the case that this was written by a serial insulter? you bet.
>
> Though I have been known to be insulting,
this is about false witness in jesus name.
this is about purposeful demeaning others in the sight of your friends
and fellow worshippers.
> I'm almost
> never as insulting as people deserve.
Jesus never taught that people deserved harm.
Jesus never taught that christians living on earth would meat out
God's justice in Jesus name.
this is all a human thought human action and human cruelity all done
in Jesus name.
this is the imbodiement of the ANTI CHRIST.
christians that refuse to act as Jesus teaches us to love as Jesus
love are the ANTI CHRISTS IN 2009!
> >> I consider
>
> >why not experience. we have so many people claiming they know
> >god.....
> >when we can see it in the writting when there is connection.
>
> Huh?
you do not explain who you are nor how you have the rigtheousness to
say or do things in this post.
it is all critisizing of others in some detail, tho nothing about your
own chip on your own shoulder.....
it is easy to pick on people in Jesus name, it was a sport in the
chrisrtian bush administration.
> >a lack of love is a good sign god is not present.
>
> Not to me. It has nothing to do with it, afawk.
>
> >> the possibility of God's existence,
>
> >why not show us your connection.
>
> To what?
what is your point hons? what are you talking about.
this post is mean and inconsiderate and said in Jesus name.
are you saying you wrote this to inspire people to love as Jesus
taught us to love?
> >> and if God does exist
>
> >it doesn't matter IF god exists when no christians actions can be said
> >like onto Jesus teaching even.
>
> I disbelieve you that it doesn't matter if God exists.
your beliefs are just that.
cause until you have met god, god isn't real for you.
you can meet god. god is real.
belief does not prove god exists, it is the first stone on the path to
find out.
god can be accessed, god is not dead.
you don't have to live in the dark of belief only.
you can live in the light of knowing god.
and with this light we all discover the love Jesus discovered. and
find that love in our hearts already.
> >> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
>
> >what does god say directly?
>
> Who knows?
then stop telling us who you think is not saved when you don't know.
> >> I say:
>
> >god is not ego oriented. when you separate yourself from us, with an
> >'i' you are no longer attempting brotherhood.
>
> I refers to the individual.
which one? who? when the statement begins as a put down of someone
that isn't real.
what part of this is real?
>Try to learn to appreciate that
> aspect of communication.
what are you talking about hons.
are you confessing before god that you wrote this original sin against
Jesus teachings?
> >> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
> >> help me to be acceptable to you.
>
> >everyone is acceptable to god.
>
> Provide reason for anyone to take your word on that.
when we find god for real in our lives, we will all know too.
there is nothing merlin can do to 'make' you wanna find god.
there is nothing merlin can do to help you find god.
it comes from interest, respect, and sense of love for all of
creation.
it starts with a curious heart that is willing to go where ever it
takes to find god.
> >it is men that segregate not god.
>
> Men certainly do it, but you don't know whether God
> does too or not.
ask god. merlin isn't supplying you any answers, cause they are all
answers we must find for ourselves.
love as hard as you can, and see what happens, you will be amazed. you
may even gain a better of understanding
of where jesus is coming from -- in the first place.
> >> Through Jesus Christ
>
> >we are all christs,
>
> You're certainly not.
there you go, judging others again! it is against Jesus teachings.
it doesn't matter how you insult merlin.
it doesn't matter that you see merlin through your own sins.
it does not affect/effect merlin's own personal relationship with
Jesus.
tho it makes Merlin responsible for this conversation unto god, and to
show you the love you show not others.
which is a sin to Jesus.
> >that is why we are called christians.
>
> >> I pray, amen.
>
> >you mean you preach?
>
> I prayed.
it is the impact of you words that matter, not your intent.
that is why Jesus tell us to do onto others as we would do unto
ourselves.................
cause we will only cause ourselves harm in the end....... no?
> >in love with the living gay
>
> No big surprise there I guess.
Love with all your heart and see what happens.
love with every fiber of your being and see what Jesus tells you.
in love with the living loving gay Jesus,
Merlin
merli...@gmail.com
> Ps 34:22 - "The LORD redeems his servants; no one will be condemned
> who takes refuge in him."
Ah so you keep a kosher house and all the laws of the old testament?
for this to be real to you, it follows that you respect the tradition
of this religion.
no one is condemned, we are all sent back to school over and over
again.
that is why people seem so set in their ways.....
some have been acting like this for thousands of years
life time after life time.
the problems of this world did not get this complicated over night.
it took the same people coming back over and over again to create this
world as it is.
so condemning others in the name is jesus is a sport around here.
it has no more to do with ritualized worship of god than does
basketball.
love, and in love we will find a way to forgive ourselves and clear
the record.
in love we will all find peace and condemn no one as a right of
worship.
least of all condemn ourselves.
in love with the living gay jesus,
merlin
dh
>On Apr 15, 4:45 am, dh@. wrote:
>
>> Ps 34:22 - "The LORD redeems his servants; no one will be condemned
>> who takes refuge in him."
>
>Ah so you keep a kosher house and all the laws of the old testament?
LOL.
>for this to be real to you, it follows that you respect the tradition
>of this religion.
We each get our own meanings from the things we read, hear,
and see.
>no one is condemned, we are all sent back to school over and over
>again.
>that is why people seem so set in their ways.....
>some have been acting like this for thousands of years
>life time after life time.
Maybe.
>the problems of this world did not get this complicated over night.
>
>it took the same people coming back over and over again to create this
>world as it is.
Maybe. Maybe not.
>so condemning others in the name is jesus is a sport around here.
>it has no more to do with ritualized worship of god than does
>basketball.
>
>love, and in love we will find a way to forgive ourselves and clear
>the record.
>in love we will all find peace and condemn no one as a right of
>worship.
>least of all condemn ourselves.
>
>in love with the living gay jesus,
>
>merlin
You are certainly judging Jesus, and if he's not gay
then you're also insulting him badly.
dh
LOL. I point out that everyone is a troll. You troll with lies and
denials, and I troll by pointing them out and by teasing you
suggesting you think beyond the ability of your poor little mind.
>and he undid all of his efforts with one post.
I posted a prayer on Easter, and people have been attacking
me for doing it.
>Marvelous.
It's good fun to challenge your shallow little minds sometimes.
dh
>On Apr 15, 6:26 pm, dh@. wrote:
>
>> If you think about it realistically you might figure out
>> that if God does exist then everyone who refers to him
>> is referring to the same being regardless of what they
>> call him or what they think about him. Then again, if
>> you can't think about it realistically as no strong atheists
>> are able to do, then there's no telling what sort of weird
>> and clueless notions you might invent.
>
>I'll take a moment to disagree with you. Not that I wish to
>discourage you but so that you don't go down the faulty path the rest
>of the world has taken.
>
>What would you do if some devil worshipers told you to praise, “Say
>ten”? Would you go around saying “praise SayTen”? Probably not
>because you would recognize that “Satan” and “Say Ten” sound the same,
>right? I mean, the guy going around isn’t actually praising Satan,
>right?
He might be. Or he might be lying as I believe Howard Levey
did a great deal of lying.
>Praise SayTen… completely different, right? Please go to your
>local church and tell your pastor that you would like to praise
>SayTen… let’s see what kind of reaction you get.
>
>Rev 13:9 If anyone has an ear, let him hear.
>
>Have you ever asked yourself, why it says, “let him hear” something
>that is written? Because he is talking about the words you speak out
>loud, not what is written.
>
>The greatest lie of scriptures is the most simply ignored instruction
>by both Christian and Jews. Whether out of ignorance, stupidity or
>manmade tradition, nobody pays attention to this:
>
>Exo 9:16 “And for this reason I have raised you up, in order to show
>you My power, and in order to declare My Name in all the earth.”
>
>Every man of Jewish and Christian faith has failed to keep this
>instruction. The majority of all scriptures read:
>
>Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God or I am Hashem Eloheicha
>
>Simply put, that is a lie! It is not written in the Hebrew text and
>any person who bothers to examine the truth for the self knows this.
>At no point in all of scriptures does it justify removing the name of
>YHWH, pronounced “Yahweh”. It should read:
>
>Exo 20:2 “I am [YHWH] ???? your Elohim”
If God exists I'm confident he knows who is referring to him
whenever he cares, regardless of how they refer to him or
what they think about him.
>Yahweh instructs us truthfully by his prophet:
>
>Jer 12:16 And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the
>ways of my people, to swear by my name, YHWH liveth; as they taught my
>people to swear by *Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of my
>people. The following are from Strong’s concordance about Hebrew
>words.
>
>*H1167
>????
>ba?al
>From H1166; a master; hence a husband, or (figuratively) owner (often
>used with another noun in modifications of this latter sense: LORD
>
>H1171
>???? ???
>ba?al ga?d
>bah'-al gawd
>From H1168 and H1409; Baal of Fortune; Baal Gad
>
>In the Greek text of the New Testament, the “Lord of Fortune” is
>called Mammon. Is it any wonder why on every U.S. dollar it reads,
>“In God we trust”? Not YHWH and not even the Hebrew name of the
>Messiah Yehoshua… Gawd.
>
>Mat 6:24 “No one is able to serve two masters, for either he shall
>hate the one and love the other, or else he shall cleave to the one
>and despise the other. You are not able to serve Elohim and mammon. 1
>Footnote: 1Personification of wealth.
>
>Notice how Ba’al gawd is pronounced Ba’al God? Sayten, Satan… Gawd,
>God… no difference in how it’s spoken.
Your games with names won't confuse God and Satan if they
exist, imo.
>Pro 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue, And those
>loving it eat its fruit.
>
>Giving your praise to “Gawd” is Ba’al worship and the church of Sayten
>is ruling the world over! “God” is the religion of Freemasonry and it
>is why all religions have come to worship the same name.
Religions generally worship the creator, regardless of what they
call him or what else they believe about him. If there is a creator,
then I believe he's as much aware of when people are praying to
him as he cares to be.
>Rev 13:7 And it was given to him to fight with the set-apart ones and
>to overcome them. And authority was given to him over every tribe and
>tongue and nation.
>
>If you worship under the false name, you are part of that false
>church!
>
>Rev 13:9 If anyone has an ear, let him hear.
>
>If you have an ear, listen to the words, not just read them… LET HIM
>HEAR!
People believe what they want about what they read and
what they are told.
dh
At least....!! !!
>Maybe you will find this amusing . . . . . . . . . :
>
>Christians hold that their faith does good, but other faiths do harm. At any rate, they
>hold this about the Communist faith. What I wish to maintain is that all faiths do harm.
>We may define 'faith' as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence.
Faith is the degree of confidence you have that something you
believe is correct. Strong atheists often dishonestly, absurdly AND
amusingly want to deny their own faith even as they try to instill it
in others.
>When there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith.'
Yes we do. You have faith that there will be enough oxygen
that you can survive if you open an outside door, and probably
most inside doors too, for examples.
>We do not speak of faith that two and two are
>four or that the earth is round.
You have faith that the Earth is round. Even though you have
never gone and made sure personally, you do have some degree
--and most likely a very high degree--of faith that it is round. You
have more faith in the oxygen, but you have faith in both. You also
are acting like the sort of person who has faith that there is no God
associated with this planet, and you quite possibly have faith that
there are no gods associated with any planets in the entire universe.
You are likely to again dishonestly, absurdly and amusingly want to
deny your faith in some if not all of the above things I've pointed out
your faith in, even though there's no doubt you do have faith in at
least some of them.
>We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion
>for evidence.
>[Bertrand Russell]
No. Faith is the degree of confidence we have that what we
have chosen to believe is correct.
dh
Their faith teaches to be kind and respectful of others,
and to not steal from them or kill them. It also teaches to
help people who need help, and afaik there are more
Christian human aid organizations than any other type.
Whether or not that's "good" is a matter of personal
opinion. You might not think it's good that Christians
help other people, but if a Christian organization helps
you some day you might be able to appreciate some
"good" in that.
>but other faiths do harm. At any rate, they
>hold this about the Communist faith. What I wish to maintain is that all faiths do harm.
>We may define 'faith' as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence.
Faith is the degree of confidence you have that
something you have chosen to believe is correct.
Denying your faith won't make it go away nor will
it make you seem more knowledgeable...quite the
opposite in fact. For those of us who recognise the
fact that everyone has faith in a number of things,
seeing people deny that they have any is like watching
something you know is fake like a cartoon, or something
you know is fantasy like Harry Potter, and then have it
try to persuade you that it's real...like interaction with
a cartoon or fantasy...
>When
>there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith.' We do not speak of faith that two and two are
>four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion
>for evidence.
>[Bertrand Russell]
In contrast to the cartoon: You have faith that the
Earth will continue to orbit the sun, probably for the
rest of your life.
dh
>dear , dh@. wrote:
>
>> >> I am a weak agnostic.
>>
>> >who self describes themselves like this?
>>
>> Weak agnostics and people who want other people
>> to believe they are.
>
>Everyone, EVERYONE, that Merlin has ever met speaks well of
>themselves.
>NO one, no one merlin has ever met would call themselves weak or want
>to be pitied like this statement claims.
LOL! Apparently you don't know anything about the basics
of atheism or agnosticism. A strong agnostic believes it is not
known whether or not God exists, and it cannot be known.
A weak agnostic believes that it is generally not known
whether or not God exists, but that some people might know if
God let them know. A strong atheist believes and HAS FAITH
that God does not exist. A weak atheist has no belief about it.
>this is a literary device used by christians to demean others in their
>christian eyes.
In contrast to that dishonesty: It's a way of referring to
the different beliefs that different people have.
>> >this is a put down of someone, not a confession
>>
>> It's just a fact that you apparently don't like for
>> whatever reason(s).
>
>what is real about it.......?
>name some names.
>give your personal list of those that are weak.
>
>give us the name of the weak person that wrote this self abusing
>letter that is being bandied about?
I pointed out that I'm a weak agnostic, if that's what
you're bothered about.
>give us the name of the cruel mean inconsiderate propaganistic
>religious pomposity that wrote this even.
I can give you the name of a source that could educate you
about different people's beliefs IF you were capable of learning,
which so far it appears you are not. The source is called:
Wikipedia
_________________________________________________________
Weak agnosticism, or empirical agnosticism (also negative
agnosticism), according to Graham Oppy, is "the view which
is sustained by the thesis that it is permissible for
reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question
of God's existence."[1]
Weak agnosticism is in contrast to strong agnosticism, in
which the agnostic believes that the existence of any gods
is unknowable to humanity.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> >> That being the case
>>
>> >the case that this was written by a serial insulter? you bet.
>>
>> Though I have been known to be insulting,
>
>this is about false witness in jesus name.
>this is about purposeful demeaning others in the sight of your friends
>and fellow worshippers.
In contrast to that dishonesty: It's about presenting my position
and making a prayer of thanks.
>> I'm almost
>> never as insulting as people deserve.
>
>Jesus never taught that people deserved harm.
You have shown yourself to be both dishonest and ignorant
and that IS ALL you have done so far. I haven't been nearly
as insulting as you deserve for being so incredibly lame.
>Jesus never taught that christians living on earth would meat out
>God's justice in Jesus name.
>this is all a human thought human action and human cruelity all done
>in Jesus name.
>
>this is the imbodiement of the ANTI CHRIST.
More dishonesty.
>christians that refuse to act as Jesus teaches us to love as Jesus
>love are the ANTI CHRISTS IN 2009!
There's even more dishonesty.
>> >> I consider
>>
>> >why not experience. we have so many people claiming they know
>> >god.....
>> >when we can see it in the writting when there is connection.
>>
>> Huh?
>
>you do not explain who you are nor how you have the rigtheousness to
>say or do things in this post.
The same as you do.
>it is all critisizing of others in some detail,
As you wish you were doing, and are unsuccessfully
trying to do.
>tho nothing about your
>own chip on your own shoulder.....
>
>it is easy to pick on people in Jesus name, it was a sport in the
>chrisrtian bush administration.
>
>> >a lack of love is a good sign god is not present.
>>
>> Not to me. It has nothing to do with it, afawk.
>>
>> >> the possibility of God's existence,
>>
>> >why not show us your connection.
>>
>> To what?
>
>what is your point hons? what are you talking about.
The possibility that God exists and came to Earth
as Jesus.
>this post is mean and inconsiderate and said in Jesus name.
>
>are you saying you wrote this to inspire people to love as Jesus
>taught us to love?
No, or I would have tried to inspire that.
>> >> and if God does exist
>>
>> >it doesn't matter IF god exists when no christians actions can be said
>> >like onto Jesus teaching even.
>>
>> I disbelieve you that it doesn't matter if God exists.
>
>your beliefs are just that.
>cause until you have met god, god isn't real for you.
>you can meet god. god is real.
Being a weak agnostic I do consider the possibility...or
rather the fact that I do consider it makes me a weak
agnostic.
>belief does not prove god exists, it is the first stone on the path to
>find out.
>
>god can be accessed, god is not dead.
>you don't have to live in the dark of belief only.
>you can live in the light of knowing god.
>and with this light we all discover the love Jesus discovered. and
>find that love in our hearts already.
>
>> >> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
>>
>> >what does god say directly?
>>
>> Who knows?
>
>then stop telling us who you think is not saved when you don't know.
Unless you can give examples of me telling you who I think is
not saved, we have another example of you being dishonest.
>> >> I say:
>>
>> >god is not ego oriented. when you separate yourself from us, with an
>> >'i' you are no longer attempting brotherhood.
>>
>> I refers to the individual.
>
>which one?
The one referring to his or her self.
>who? when the statement begins as a put down of someone
>that isn't real.
That's dishonest.
>what part of this is real?
The most real thing about our discussion has been me
pointing out your ignorances and dishonesties.
>>Try to learn to appreciate that
>> aspect of communication.
>
>what are you talking about
You trying to learn to appreciate what a person means
when they refer to "I".
>hons.
>are you confessing before god that you wrote this original sin against
>Jesus teachings?
Which one?
>> >> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
>> >> help me to be acceptable to you.
>>
>> >everyone is acceptable to god.
>>
>> Provide reason for anyone to take your word on that.
>
>when we find god for real in our lives, we will all know too.
>there is nothing merlin can do to 'make' you wanna find god.
>there is nothing merlin can do to help you find god.
You also can't even attempt to back up your claim.
>it comes from interest, respect, and sense of love for all of
>creation.
>it starts with a curious heart that is willing to go where ever it
>takes to find god.
>
>> >it is men that segregate not god.
>>
>> Men certainly do it, but you don't know whether God
>> does too or not.
>
>ask god. merlin isn't supplying you any answers,
LOL. No, most of what you've "supplied" has been
dishonesty, so for a strange change you've said
something that's true.
>cause they are all
>answers we must find for ourselves.
>
>love as hard as you can, and see what happens, you will be amazed. you
>may even gain a better of understanding
>of where jesus is coming from -- in the first place.
>
>> >> Through Jesus Christ
>>
>> >we are all christs,
>>
>> You're certainly not.
>
>there you go, judging others again!
I judge that you're not the Pope either and don't feel
any guilt about it, just as I feel no guilt for judging you
are not Christ.
>it is against Jesus teachings.
>it doesn't matter how you insult merlin.
>it doesn't matter that you see merlin through your own sins.
>it does not affect/effect merlin's own personal relationship with
>Jesus.
>
>tho it makes Merlin responsible for this conversation unto god, and to
>show you the love you show not others.
>which is a sin to Jesus.
>
>> >that is why we are called christians.
>>
>> >> I pray, amen.
>>
>> >you mean you preach?
>>
>> I prayed.
>
>it is the impact of you words that matter, not your intent.
>that is why Jesus tell us to do onto others as we would do unto
>ourselves.................
>cause we will only cause ourselves harm in the end....... no?
If my prayer ends up hurting me then that's out of my
hands. At least I tried.
merli...@gmail.com
> In contrast to that dishonesty:
you have not proven anything you have said is honest.
you have quoted wiki, a self governing site.
> It's about presenting my position
> and making a prayer of thanks.
what are youse talking about hons.
> You have shown yourself to be both dishonest and ignorant
> and that IS ALL you have done so far.
please list your complaints. it helps understand what you are talking
about.
> I haven't been nearly
> as insulting as you deserve for being so incredibly lame.
again, what does this have to do with anyone other then you?
> More dishonesty.
when a christian does not act like jesus teaches, that is being anti
jesus and anti christ.
that you say you are a faithful athiest is fine, what does that have
to do with others that believe or know there is a god?
>
> >christians that refuse to act as Jesus teaches us to love as Jesus
> >love are the ANTI CHRISTS IN 2009!
>
> There's even more dishonesty.
when we don't live up to jesus teachings we are anti jesus.
this isn't dishonest. it may not apply to you, it isn't dishonest at
all.
> >you do not explain who you are nor how you have the rigtheousness to
> >say or do things in this post.
>
> The same as you do.
so who are you. your self protective manner while judging others is
fun.
> As you wish you were doing, and are unsuccessfully
> trying to do.
not trying to succeed here, just responding.
> The possibility that God exists and came to Earth
> as Jesus.
you are god, jesus is god, mary is god, moses is god.
your neighbors are god. all is god.
there is nothing separate from god.
the whole universe is made up of the same substance.
>
> No, or I would have tried to inspire that.
you sound so republican.
>
> Being a weak agnostic
merlin does not join groups.
you can join the weak agnostic group
it isn't merlin's problem or business.
> Unless you can give examples of me telling you who I think is
> not saved, we have another example of you being dishonest.
have you tried to love?
have you asked god to come to you?
have you prepared yourself for a visit from god?
have you tried to love so hard it hurts?
have you?
you want it the easy way? merlin can't help you.
a relationship with god is personal and private.
not a group thang tho a group can help each of us understand what is
happening to us.
>
> >> >> I say:
> The one referring to his or her self.
then let them be.
> The most real thing about our discussion has been me
> pointing out your ignorances and dishonesties.
we all come short of the glory that is god.
> You trying to learn to appreciate what a person means
> when they refer to "I".
ego is easy.
>
> LOL. No, most of what you've "supplied" has been
> dishonesty, so for a strange change you've said
> something that's true.
it isn't about merlin being honest.
it is about you honestly observing.
there is a seeming taint to your observations
>
> I judge that you're not the Pope either and don't feel
> any guilt about it, just as I feel no guilt for judging you
> are not Christ.
we are all christs. we are all god and our bodies are temples to the
god within each of us.
> If my prayer ends up hurting me then that's out of my
> hands. At least I tried.
don't try, do.
when we love it works.
when we love our hearts open.
when our hearts open
the love will bring us closer to ourselves
we will have access to our own divinity.
you need only love.
Merlin
flower of romance
<dh@.> wrote in message news:g95cu45gmh03fjr38...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:51:36 +0100, "flower of romance" <whoc...@me.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:3m6bu49gtsf1fb7u7...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:31:54 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is believed that the foundation of the Christian religion,
>>>>civilization
>>>>and morality is the Good Book. This is patently ridiculous because the
>>>>Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
>>>>human
>>>>and animal sacrifices,
>>>
>>> Which bibles advocate human sacrifice? The "Satanic Bible"
>>> doesn't even do that afaik...murder yes, but sacrifice no.
>>
>>LOL. Poor DH. tried for so long to persuade us that he wasn't a troll
>
> LOL. I point out that everyone is a troll.
Alert! Alert. The troll posted yet again.
bob young
dh@. wrote:
What lunacy, your faith is there because it us all you have.
The last thing atheists want is faith. we prefer:
Logic
common sense
Facts
evidence
bob young
dh@. wrote:
You are wrong - Bertrand Russell is right and at the back of your mind,
assuming you re an intelligent person, you already know that
Mike Painter
>> Yes we do. You have faith that there will be enough oxygen
>> that you can survive if you open an outside door, and probably
>> most inside doors too, for examples.
This and teh other inane examples are often used as examples of "faith" when
dealing with the very young.
It is *not* religious faith as has been defined by all major religions for
at least 1500 years.
People who believe this are the ones who try to "prove" their bible is right
and will do anything to ignore the truth.
"All the article of our christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His
Word, are in the presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd and false.
...Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has. ...She is the devils
greatest whore... a whore eaten by scabs and leprosy, who ought to be
trodden underfoot and destroyed, she and her wisdom...Throw dung in her
face...drown her in baptism"
-- Martin Luther
SkyEyes
But-but-but didn't you *just say* that "We each get our own meanings
from the things we read, hear, and see"? Seems that *you* want the
right to *your* own interpretation, but since merlin's interpretation
makes you uncomfortable, you claim he's insulting Jesus.
Hypocrite much?
<Spit>
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
SkyEyes
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:57:21 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
> >> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
>
> >> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
> >> I pray, amen.
>
>
> Maybe you are but I have no reason to, so I'm not.
>
> >If you're a weak agnostic, then I'm a virgin.
>
> ><Eyeroll>
>
> Then you're a virgin...or you're being dishonest about it...
I'm neither, just like you're really not a weak agnostic. You're here
to proselytize. Your little prayer is a dead giveaway.
SkyEyes
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:56:11 -0700 (PDT), merlina...@gmail.com wrote:
> >dear , dh@. wrote:
>
> >> >> I am a weak agnostic.
>
> >> >who self describes themselves like this?
>
> >> Weak agnostics and people who want other people
> >> to believe they are.
>
> >Everyone, EVERYONE, that Merlin has ever met speaks well of
> >themselves.
> >NO one, no one merlin has ever met would call themselves weak or want
> >to be pitied like this statement claims.
>
> LOL! Apparently you don't know anything about the basics
> of atheism or agnosticism. A strong agnostic believes it is not
> known whether or not God exists, and it cannot be known.
> A weak agnostic believes that it is generally not known
> whether or not God exists, but that some people might know if
> God let them know.
But that's where the "weak agnosticism" argument falls apart:
"...but...some people might know [God] if God let them know." That
PRESUPPOSES the existence of a god. And as I read your stuff, it's
quite clear that there's only one god you are weakly agnostic *about*
- the biblical god, and specifically christian. So you aren't
*really* a weak agnostic - you're really a believer who is here to
play word games with us.
Are you as "weakly agnostic" about the existence of Zeus? Might you
come to know Thor, if Thor lets you know him? Somehow, I think not.
dh
>On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:20:44 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:56:11 -0700 (PDT), merli...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>dear , dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> I am a weak agnostic.
>>>>
>>>> >who self describes themselves like this?
>>>>
>>>> Weak agnostics and people who want other people
>>>> to believe they are.
>>>
>>>Everyone, EVERYONE, that Merlin has ever met speaks well of
>>>themselves.
>>>NO one, no one merlin has ever met would call themselves weak or want
>>>to be pitied like this statement claims.
>>
>> LOL! Apparently you don't know anything about the basics
>>of atheism or agnosticism. A strong agnostic believes it is not
>>known whether or not God exists, and it cannot be known.
>>A weak agnostic believes that it is generally not known
>>whether or not God exists, but that some people might know if
>>God let them know. A strong atheist believes and HAS FAITH
>>that God does not exist. A weak atheist has no belief about it.
>>
>>>this is a literary device used by christians to demean others in their
>>>christian eyes.
>>
>> In contrast to that dishonesty: It's a way of referring to
>>the different beliefs that different people have.
>
>you have not proven anything you have said is honest.
Try explaining what you want people to believe the difference
between strong and weak atheism is. Go:
>you have quoted wiki,
Try telling us what you want people who believe God does
not exist to be called, if not strong atheists. Go:
>a self governing site.
>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>
>> In contrast to that dishonesty:
>
>you have not proven anything you have said is honest.
>
>you have not proven anything you have said is honest.
Try explaining what you want people to believe the difference
between strong and weak ateism is. Go:
>you have quoted wiki,
Try telling us what you want people who believe God does
not exist to be called, if not strong atheists. Go:
>a self governing site.
>
>> It's about presenting my position
>> and making a prayer of thanks.
>
>what are youse talking about hons.
Having presented my position and made a prayer of thanks.
This "religious" stuff really does baffle some of you poor people
doesn't it. But then I guess if it didn't, you'd be able to think about
it realistically...or at least in a way that would feel realistic to you.
>> You have shown yourself to be both dishonest and ignorant
>> and that IS ALL you have done so far.
>
>please list your complaints. it helps understand what you are talking
>about.
1. This shows you can't appreciate or probably even comprehend
the difference between strong and weak agnosticism:
>>>NO one, no one merlin has ever met would call themselves weak or want
>>>to be pitied like this statement claims.
2. and this is dishonesty in an attempt to oppose the meaning
of weak ateism:
>>>this is a literary device used by christians to demean others in their
>>>christian eyes.
3. and here's some insulting bullshit attacking me simply for pointing
out that I'm a weak agnostic:
>>>give us the name of the cruel mean inconsiderate propaganistic
>>>religious pomposity that wrote this even.
There are more.
>> I haven't been nearly
>> as insulting as you deserve for being so incredibly lame.
>
>again, what does this have to do with anyone other then you?
It has to do with you too.
>> More dishonesty.
>
>when a christian does not act like jesus teaches, that is being anti
>jesus and anti christ.
Not necessarily. Sometimes it is and sometimes not, so again
you were dishonest. Let's call this one #4.
>that you say you are a faithful athiest is fine,
There's more dishonesty from you. It's #5.
>what does that have
>to do with others that believe or know there is a god?
Maybe some people know there is and maybe no one knows.
The fact that I appreciate and take into consideration that
particular fact is what makes me a weak agnostic instead
of a strong one...a strong one believes no one can know.
I recognise that some people could know if God does exist,
but no one can know if he does not. Even if he doesn't no
one can know it but they have simply guessed correctly,
and--amusingly--they never will know it.
>> >christians that refuse to act as Jesus teaches us to love as Jesus
>> >love are the ANTI CHRISTS IN 2009!
>>
>> There's even more dishonesty.
>
>when we don't live up to jesus teachings we are anti jesus.
>this isn't dishonest. it may not apply to you, it isn't dishonest at
>all.
Then you're saying everyone is the anti christ, meaning that
you're removing all meaning and significance from the term, which
is certainly a form of dishonesty. This one can be #6.
>> >you do not explain who you are nor how you have the rigtheousness to
>> >say or do things in this post.
>>
>> The same as you do.
>
>so who are you. your self protective manner while judging others is
>fun.
What I did was point out how you were doing what you
wanted to dishonestly bitch at me for, and now you're trying
to turn it around and dishonestly put it on me again. Since
this is really a double-dishonesty it can be #7 & #8.
>> As you wish you were doing, and are unsuccessfully
>> trying to do.
>
>not trying to succeed here, just responding.
>
>> The possibility that God exists and came to Earth
>> as Jesus.
>
>you are god, jesus is god, mary is god, moses is god.
>your neighbors are god. all is god.
>there is nothing separate from god.
So according to you the term anti christ and the term
god no longer have any significant meaning at all. To
me that's very dishonest, though so far I can still consider
the possibility that it somehow may not seem that way to
you, maybe, I guess, maybe... It's an attempt at a dishonest
trick for some odd reason whether you can recognise it
as such or not though, so we'll call this one #9.
>the whole universe is made up of the same substance.
And what is it you want people to think that is, do you
know?
>> No, or I would have tried to inspire that.
>
>you sound so republican.
>
>
>>
>> Being a weak agnostic
>
>merlin does not join groups.
>you can join the weak agnostic group
LOL. I am a weak agnostic. I didn't join the group because
I liked the name, but instead found the term that applies to
what I believe. At first I thought I was a weak atheist because
I don't have a belief, and I didn't like being associated with
that term. But! I was closer to a weak atheist than a strong
agnostic, and at the time I didn't know about the term weak
agnosticism so I was wrong for a time, but (again) now I know
the term that applies to me now and has for the past several
years.
>it isn't merlin's problem or business.
>
>> Unless you can give examples of me telling you who I think is
>> not saved, we have another example of you being dishonest.
>
>have you tried to love?
That's not an example.
>have you asked god to come to you?
That's not an example.
>have you prepared yourself for a visit from god?
That's not an example.
>have you tried to love so hard it hurts?
That's not an example.
>have you?
That's not an example.
>you want it the easy way?
This is another example of your dishonesty. To be realistic
and straight with it we really should number each example as
the individual example that it is which would take us to #14!
Instead though we can lump them together in one group
keeping you "down to" #10. Even if we are overly generous
to you it's still quite a lot to have 10 legitimate complaints,
mostly about dishonesty, in one post from you as an individual.
You really are much too comfortable with dishonesty, imo.
>merlin can't help you.
>a relationship with god is personal and private.
That's what I've been pointing out to some of the strong
atheists who are ashamed of their own faith, when they
absurdly and childlikely beg for proof of God's existence.
>not a group thang tho a group can help each of us understand what is
>happening to us.
Maybe once in a while.
>> >> >> I say:
>> The one referring to his or her self.
>
>then let them be.
You're the one stirring up the shit about it for some
unexplained reason.
>> The most real thing about our discussion has been me
>> pointing out your ignorances and dishonesties.
>
>we all come short of the glory that is god.
That may be the most honest thing I've known you
to post so far.
>> You trying to learn to appreciate what a person means
>> when they refer to "I".
>
>ego is easy.
Then try to learn to comprehend AND appreciate the
things associated with the term, and then feel satisfaction
if you ever manage to do so. Good luck to you!
>> LOL. No, most of what you've "supplied" has been
>> dishonesty, so for a strange change you've said
>> something that's true.
>
>it isn't about merlin being honest.
That's doesn't appear to be of much significance to you,
as you have certainly demonstrated repeatedly.
>it is about you honestly observing.
I'm observing and then sharing the observations.
>there is a seeming taint to your observations
For me your dishonesties aren't a taint even though they
do have some negative values for me, because they don't
taint me. Your own dishonesties however do taint you even
though not enough for you to care, but you recognise that
there is a taint there and so you again dishonestly want to
try moving it onto somebody else. It's a dishonest trick of
a particularly low sort so we'll have to include it, and of
course we should call it #11.
>> I judge that you're not the Pope either and don't feel
>> any guilt about it, just as I feel no guilt for judging you
>> are not Christ.
>
>we are all christs.
Now you have said that the terms: anti christ, god, and
christ are all meaningless. To you such dishonesty must
be in some odd way admirable or you wouldn't be posting
it, but from my position it's just more dishonest useless
dishonesty. Being another clear example of dishonesty
it must go on the list, and we'll call it #12.
>we are all god and our bodies are temples to the
>god within each of us.
>
>> If my prayer ends up hurting me then that's out of my
>> hands. At least I tried.
>
>don't try, do.
I did. You're bitching about it. See how it fits together?
>when we love it works.
>when we love our hearts open.
>when our hearts open
>the love will bring us closer to ourselves
>we will have access to our own divinity.
>
>you need only love.
No. You really need honesty too in order to think realistically,
so you clocked out of this post on #13. You sure are a
remarkably dishohest sort of person.
dh
>On Apr 15, 10:20 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:56:11 -0700 (PDT), merlina...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >dear , dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >> >> I am a weak agnostic.
>>
>> >> >who self describes themselves like this?
>>
>> >> Weak agnostics and people who want other people
>> >> to believe they are.
>>
>> >Everyone, EVERYONE, that Merlin has ever met speaks well of
>> >themselves.
>> >NO one, no one merlin has ever met would call themselves weak or want
>> >to be pitied like this statement claims.
>>
>> LOL! Apparently you don't know anything about the basics
>> of atheism or agnosticism. A strong agnostic believes it is not
>> known whether or not God exists, and it cannot be known.
>> A weak agnostic believes that it is generally not known
>> whether or not God exists, but that some people might know if
>> God let them know.
>
>But that's where the "weak agnosticism" argument falls apart:
>"...but...some people might know [God] if God let them know." That
>PRESUPPOSES the existence of a god.
It considers the possibility. One thing a number of you people
seem to have in common is that you can't appreciate the fact
that it's necessary to consider the possibility, in order to consider
the possibility. If you can't do it then I guess it does make sense
that you can't appreciate the fact--*I guess*--but it's impossible
to relate to being that clueless when you're not, which I'm not
so I'll never understand completely why you can't comprehend.
>And as I read your stuff, it's
>quite clear that there's only one god you are weakly agnostic *about*
>- the biblical god, and specifically christian.
If God does exist I've chosen to believe he did do as we
are told he did as Christ.
>So you aren't
>*really* a weak agnostic -
Yes I am. I might be the only one you've ever encountered,
but I am one now and have been for several years.
>you're really a believer
No. If I were then I wouldn't consider the possibility that there
is no God associated with this planet, meaning I would no longer
be a weak agnostic. I WAS a believer, and then tried to be a
strong atheist but after trying for a few years I learned that I'm
really a weak agnonstic, so I accepted the fact and go from there.
>who is here to play word games with us.
Actually I'm here to challenge your little brains and encourage
you to play "games" with them, but you can't get past your lack
of understanding regarding terminology, which is one thing that's
keeping you rooted in place. It's not the only thing though, and
even IF!!! you ever do learn to distinguish between different
types of atheism and/or agnosticism you almost certainly still
won't be able to move on with your own thinking and lack of.
>Are you as "weakly agnostic" about the existence of Zeus?
If a creator exists then he does, regardless of what who calls
him and what who thinks about him. That's ones so easy even
a strong atheist should be able to learn to appreciate it, but
somehow they don't seem to grasp that one either.
>Might you
>come to know Thor, if Thor lets you know him?
If so, so. That's another one that's so easy even you SHOULD
be able to comprehend...
>Somehow, I think not.
...but, somehow, I think not.
dh
>On Apr 15, 1:27 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:57:21 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
>> >> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
>> >> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
>> >> I say:
>>
>> >> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
>> >> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
>> >> I pray, amen.
>>
>> >Lying For Jesus, are we?
>>
>> Maybe you are but I have no reason to, so I'm not.
>>
>> >If you're a weak agnostic, then I'm a virgin.
>>
>> ><Eyeroll>
>>
>> Then you're a virgin...or you're being dishonest about it...
>
>I'm neither,
You made a dishonest claim, and tisk tisk on you for it.
>just like you're really not a weak agnostic.
I am a weak agnostic. You certainly are comfortable
with dishonesty.
>You're here
>to proselytize.
I'm here to encourage people to consider significant things
they want to disregard because they are outside of their mental
comfort zone.
>Your little prayer is a dead giveaway.
>
>Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>BAAWA Knight
>EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
>skyeyes nine at cox dot net
There's nothing wrong with a weak agnostic making a prayer
like that--especially on Easter--you poor stifled little fool.
dh
It certainly does seem stupid and lunatical, but I've seen
plenty of examples of it. I believe you yourself are just such
an example, now that you mention it.
>your faith is there because it us all you have.
Faith is the degree of confidence you have that something
you believe is correct.
>The last thing atheists want is faith.
Strong atheism is the belief that God does not exist.
The degree of faith a person has that that guess is
correct is what determines how strong an atheist
they are. If they have no faith at all then they are a
weak atheist, not a strong one.
>we prefer:
>
>Logic
>common sense
>Facts
>evidence
Whatever forms your beliefs, the amount of faith
you have that your beliefs are correct is what determines
how strong an atheist you are. If you have no faith, then
you are not a strong atheist.
dh
Nope. It is an obvious lie, in fact, since I poited out several
examples of things you have faith in. You have faith that if
you jump off the ground gravity will return you to it. The
question is why you're so very ashamed of such facts.
>and at the back of your mind,
>assuming you re an intelligent person, you already know that
I know Bertrand wanted to give people a false interpretation
of what faith involves. Why is what's in question, not whether
or not. Why do you think?
dh
> <snip>
>>> Yes we do. You have faith that there will be enough oxygen
>>> that you can survive if you open an outside door, and probably
>>> most inside doors too, for examples.
><snip>
>This and teh other inane examples
The examples I gave are fine. If you want to provide some
you think are better, then go ahead and share them:
>are often used as examples of "faith" when
>dealing with the very young.
Examples of faith are examples of faith at any age, and it
shows childlike thinking to think otherwise.
>It is *not* religious faith as has been defined by all major religions for
>at least 1500 years.
People have had faith in things since before there was religion,
so it's no big surprise they've had it for 1500 years since they've
had it in various ways since the origin of modern man, and it appears
there were beings who had it even before that.
>People who believe this are the ones who try to "prove" their bible is right
>and will do anything to ignore the truth.
What do you think the truth is?
>"All the article of our christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His
>Word, are in the presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd and false.
That's one possibility.
>...Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has.
LOL. That's bullshit.
>...She is the devils greatest whore...
LOL!!! Of course that's even more full of shit, since making that
claim contradicts the whole idea he's trying to promote.
>a whore eaten by scabs and leprosy, who ought to be
>trodden underfoot and destroyed, she and her wisdom...Throw dung in her
>face...drown her in baptism"
>-- Martin Luther
Wow...I didn't know Martin Luther was an idiot. Thanks.
dh
Now you're trying to change the subject. If he's not gay then
merlin insulted him regardless of whether or not he actually
believes Jesus may have been gay or not.
>Seems that *you* want the
>right to *your* own interpretation,
Now you're trying to dishonestly twist it around to make it
appear that I'm the one who made a claim about his sexual
desires when in fact it's merlin who did that and what I did
was make a comment about what he did.
>but since merlin's interpretation
>makes you uncomfortable, you claim he's insulting Jesus.
If Jesus wasn't/isn't gay then of course it's an insult.
Why do you dishonestly want to pretend it would not be,
do you have any idea?
>Hypocrite much?
Not that we know of, no.
dh
I pointed out something else that you don't like. "You" don't want
to think for whatever reasons, but apparently you have a brain that
does which is one way you fight against yourself. Hmmm...that would
explain why you want people to believe you can think beyond the
one possibility you appear to have put your faith in, and which you
insult other people for thinking beyond. Your brain wants to do it and
so in your subconscious that's the sort of thing you feel is more worthy
of respect, but "you" don't want to do it for one thing because it's too
much trouble and you're too mentally lazy, you're also afraid to but
you'll never admit that, and you look up to people who don't and
down on people who do, and whatever other reasons... But still you
apparently get something positive out of having somebody explain
all that for you, even though you're not likely to move on any time soon.
If ever.
dh
exist is what determines how strong an atheist he or
she is. If you have no faith that God does not exist,
then you are NOT a strong atheist!
_________________________________________________________
. . .
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
WangoTango
>
> There's nothing wrong with a weak agnostic making a prayer
> like that--especially on Easter--you poor stifled little fool.
>
>
god/gods you had better make sure to cover all your bases and make
prayers and offering for ALL of the various gods. Your limiting
yourself to a single religion shows that you are not open to the
possibility of there being many gods to whom you giving favour to a
single entity is insulting, therefore dooming yourself and all mankind
to slavery under our alien overlords. Open your heart and mind to all
these possibilities and save the world.
Here are some short lists to get you started :
http://www.religioustolerance.org/holy_day1.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/holy_day2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
Pascal's wager requires a bigger ante than you thought.
merli...@gmail.com
> >you have not proven anything you have said is honest.
>
> Try explaining what you want people to believe the difference
> between strong and weak atheism is. Go:
Honesty is an experience, not a belief system.
> >you have quoted wiki,
>
> Try telling us what you want people who believe God does
> not exist to be called, if not strong atheists. Go:
strength is a judgement. weakness is a judgement.
not judging is the hardest thing of all.
> >you have not proven anything you have said is honest.
>
> Try explaining what you want people to believe the difference
> between strong and weak ateism is. Go:
honesty is not about proving anything. it is a way of life.
> Having presented my position and made a prayer of thanks.
> This "religious" stuff really does baffle some of you poor people
> doesn't it.
who youse talking to hons?
> But then I guess if it didn't, you'd be able to think about
> it realistically...or at least in a way that would feel realistic to you.
ah the new savior of us all? we have so many preachers on Christnet
trying to save others and not themselves.
> 1. This shows you can't appreciate or probably even comprehend
> the difference between strong and weak agnosticism:
judgments are unnecessary.
be anything you want.
a good hunter and a bad hunter is still hunters.
> 2. and this is dishonesty in an attempt to oppose the meaning
> of weak ateism:
it is a perception not a fact.
> 3. and here's some insulting bullshit attacking me simply for pointing
> out that I'm a weak agnostic:
name one insulting thing merlin has written to you?
all Merlin is asking is that you love and see that it does work..
> >when a christian does not act like jesus teaches, that is being anti
> >jesus and anti christ.
>
> Not necessarily. Sometimes it is and sometimes not, so again
> you were dishonest. Let's call this one #4.
name an instant then where this has happened.
> Maybe
maybe is faith based.
> some people know there is and maybe no one knows.
> The fact that I appreciate and take into consideration that
> particular fact is what makes me a weak agnostic instead
> of a strong one...a strong one believes no one can know.
> I recognise that some people could know if God does exist,
> but no one can know if he does not. Even if he doesn't no
> one can know it but they have simply guessed correctly,
> and--amusingly--they never will know it.
can't you move on from this......
you refuse to love as Merlin suggested.
you refuse to even try to love as Merlin suggested.
This 'experiement' is the start of an adventure you are refusing.
> Then you're saying everyone is the anti christ,
you are so full of absolutes.
do you not see the middle at all?
> meaning that
> you're removing all meaning and significance from the term, which
> is certainly a form of dishonesty. This one can be #6.
what are youse talking about hons.
> What I did was
what you are doing........
> point out how you were doing what you
> wanted to dishonestly bitch at me for,
there is no bitching, these are your words.
Merlin is asking you to love till hurts
and you call that bitching at you? LOL.
> and now you're trying
> to turn it around
there is always more than one side to everything.
turn the thought around on itself see what happens.
> and dishonestly put it on me again.
again, you are not happy. no one can make you happy.
> Since
> this is really a double-dishonesty it can be #7 & #8.
you have an opportunity to discuss the reality of god.
you have an opportunity to find god for yourself through love.
and you sit on your hands in stuborn pursuit of concepts of honesty
instead?
> So according to you the term anti christ
anyone that believes and follows jesus tho does not do as jesus
teaches.
> and the term
> god no longer have any significant meaning at all.
we are not talking about meaning of things.
we are talking about the reality of god.
we are talking about methods to get god more involved directly in our
lives.
>To
> me that's very dishonest,
every holy book has a thousand meanings for every important passage.
we can discuss the true meaning of the meaning of everything
while doing nothing to find out.
try to love a little even?
> though so far I can still consider
> the possibility that it somehow may not seem that way to
> you, maybe, I guess, maybe...
what are you saying?
> It's an attempt at a dishonest
> trick for some odd reason whether you can recognise it
> as such or not though, so we'll call this one #9.
you can make up laws to govern yourself all you want.
we got too many laws on the books when the christians controlled the
bush government.
> >the whole universe is made up of the same substance.
>
> And what is it you want people to think that is, do you
> know?
that someone blew their nose and got it all over the universe?
> >merlin does not join groups.
> >you can join the weak agnostic group
>
> LOL. I am a weak agnostic.
really you can join any group you want.
it may define who you think you want to be.
it may not contain all your identy.
and believing or not believing in god, does not take our souls away.
> I didn't join the group because
> I liked the name, but instead found the term that applies to
> what I believe.
it is judgement.
> At first I thought I was a weak atheist because
> I don't have a belief, and I didn't like being associated with
> that term. But! I was closer to a weak atheist than a strong
> agnostic, and at the time I didn't know about the term weak
> agnosticism so I was wrong for a time, but (again) now I know
> the term that applies to me now and has for the past several
> years.
having been agnostic, it was a refuge and a state of being, yes.
> >it isn't merlin's problem or business.
>
> >> Unless you can give examples of me telling you who I think is
> >> not saved, we have another example of you being dishonest.
>
> >have you tried to love?
>
> That's not an example.
take the step into the frightening future.
dare to love, and see what happens.
you will be amazed.
nothing Merlin can tell you will match your own experiences.
try puppy love even.
> >have you asked god to come to you?
>
> That's not an example.
you demand proof from everyone else.
demand this of god yourself.
tho love will get your farther.
> >have you prepared yourself for a visit from god?
>
> That's not an example.
when you personally ask for proof from god, proof you can get.
when you ask for proof and then don't make the effort to be prepared
for the answer, you may or may not.
you may not see the answer even. just as one might want to take the
course before the final exam.
> >have you tried to love so hard it hurts?
>
> That's not an example.
it is a gesture towards a solution.
> >have you?
>
> That's not an example.
>
> >you want it the easy way?
really, you sound so lazy.
someone is suggesting a way to find out for yourself
and you refuse saying you want it given to you on a platter?
Like these experience with love would change you
so much you don't wanna even try to love till it hurts?
> This is another example of your dishonesty.
nope. Merlin has made no claim here that your trying will not prove
something to you.
> To be realistic
love, it all boils down to love.
and what our love attracts to us.
> and straight with it we really should number each example as
> the individual example that it is which would take us to #14!
merlin does not quote scriptures on purpose.
they tend to have too many confusing or political translations.
> Instead though we can lump them together in one group
> keeping you "down to" #10.
we are talking about love not lumping.
> Even if we are overly generous
> to you it's still quite a lot to have 10 legitimate complaints,
you have not listed one real complaint against merlin with any
examples.
your are generalizing, and treating Merlin as you have been treated in
the past.
merlin is not treating you as you have been treated in the past.
merlin is showing a curious mind that found something out through
love.
can you image your love as a portal?
> mostly about dishonesty,
you are weak and only talk about dishonesty? we got that part.
> in one post from you as an individual.
> You really are much too comfortable with dishonesty, imo.
Love will change all that for you.
Love will change your view point.
Love will help you learn more.
as we do learn about those things we are most attracted to.
> >merlin can't help you.
> >a relationship with god is personal and private.
>
> That's what I've been pointing out to some of the strong
> atheists who are ashamed of their own faith, when they
> absurdly and childlikely beg for proof of God's existence.
Oh so you weren't looking for proof there is a god?
this is all ruse for you?
> >not a group thang tho a group can help each of us understand what is
> >happening to us.
>
> Maybe once in a while.
that is all it takes.
> You're the one stirring up the shit about it for some
> unexplained reason.
your putdowns of yourself, do not sound humbling.
> >we all come short of the glory that is god.
>
> That may be the most honest thing I've known you
> to post so far.
you would fall for the 'short' joke.
Try to love, it will make you laugh.
In love with the living gay Jesus,
Merlin
Sanity's Little Helper
> The amount of faith a peson has that God does not
> exist is what determines how strong an atheist he or
> she is.
It doesn't take a shred of faith to know categorically that God does not
exist. Just a modicum of intellectual honesty.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
if a tree falls in the woods, what are the odds it will land in some bear
shit ?
Not authentic without this signature.
SkyEyes
Ah, Snookums, but I *have* considered the possibility. And come to
the conclusion that there's no evidence supporting the notion that any
god exists.
And if you're talking about the tri-omni monotheistic god of
christianity, judaism and islam, well, *that* god cannot exist, as it
is logically impossible.
If you consider something and find there's no evidence to support it,
there's no reason to keep considering it. If new evidence comes in,
you can always re-open your considerations.
So: do you have any evidence that any god exists? If so, please post
it here, and I'll reconsider the possibility that a god exists.
If you do not have such evidence, kindly FOAD out of alt.atheism, as
you are just wasting our time and electrons.
> If you can't do it then I guess it does make sense
> that you can't appreciate the fact--*I guess*--but it's impossible
> to relate to being that clueless when you're not, which I'm not
> so I'll never understand completely why you can't comprehend.
>
> >And as I read your stuff, it's
> >quite clear that there's only one god you are weakly agnostic *about*
> >- the biblical god, and specifically christian.
>
> If God does exist I've chosen to believe he did do as we
> are told he did as Christ.
Which is the meat of the problem, isn't it, Duckie? You've *chosen*
to believe. You aren't really "considering" any evidence - for
instance, evidence indicating that another god might exist, or a
number of other gods, or that it is logically impossible for the judeo-
christian-islamist god to exist. You've just chosen to believe.
Well, I've chosen to consider the evidence, and unfortunately, there
isn't any. If you've got some, I'll consider it. However, I am
unable to believe in something if there's no evidence to support its
existence, so you will pardon me if I don't join your little faith-
fest.
And that's what really gets you, isn't it? We won't validate your
lifestyle choice (to believe) by making the same one, and that makes
you feel scared and insecure.
Well, tough noogies. Get over it.
>
> >So you aren't
> >*really* a weak agnostic -
>
> Yes I am. I might be the only one you've ever encountered,
> but I am one now and have been for several years.
>
> >you're really a believer
>
> No. If I were then I wouldn't consider the possibility that there
> is no God associated with this planet, meaning I would no longer
> be a weak agnostic. I WAS a believer, and then tried to be a
> strong atheist but after trying for a few years I learned that I'm
> really a weak agnonstic, so I accepted the fact and go from there.
You just confessed above that it's your inclination to believe in the
bible god. You're just playing word-games. If you really were a weak
atheist, you'd be equally indecisive about Thor and Athena and Spider
Grandmother as you are about Yahweh. But you're not. You claim to be
an agnostic, but have confessed that the only god you can associate
with this planet is Yahweh. That's not agnosticism. That's "let me
try to wear this label while I proselytize to the atheists."
And by the way? Nobody *tries* to be a strong atheist, dumbass. You
are what you are. Either you simply lack a belief in any god, in
which case you're a weak atheist; or you actively disbelieve in any
god, in which case you're a strong atheist. To quote Yoda, there is
no "try."
>
> >who is here to play word games with us.
>
> Actually I'm here to challenge your little brains and encourage
> you to play "games" with them, but you can't get past your lack
> of understanding regarding terminology, which is one thing that's
> keeping you rooted in place. It's not the only thing though, and
> even IF!!! you ever do learn to distinguish between different
> types of atheism and/or agnosticism you almost certainly still
> won't be able to move on with your own thinking and lack of.
I understand the differences much better than you do. You're a
believer playing at being an agnostic, that much is crystal-clear from
your posts.
>
> >Are you as "weakly agnostic" about the existence of Zeus?
>
> If a creator exists then he does, regardless of what who calls
> him and what who thinks about him. That's ones so easy even
> a strong atheist should be able to learn to appreciate it, but
> somehow they don't seem to grasp that one either.
All father gods do not have the same attributes. Zeus did not have
omni-attributes claimed for Yahweh.
But if using Zeus confuses you, then lets try some other gods. Are
you weakly agnostic concerning Athena? Ganesh? Kali? Spider
Grandmother?
>
> >Might you
> >come to know Thor, if Thor lets you know him?
>
> If so, so. That's another one that's so easy even you SHOULD
> be able to comprehend...
I'm supposed to comprehend "If so, so" when you said upthread that the
only god you could associate with this planet was the bible god?
Methinks you're getting a bit frayed at the nerves.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Apr 20, 4:36 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:01:34 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >On Apr 15, 10:20 am, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:56:11 -0700 (PDT), merlina...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >dear , dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> I am a weak agnostic.
>>
>> >> >> >who self describes themselves like this?
>>
>> >> >> Weak agnostics and people who want other people
>> >> >> to believe they are.
>>
>> >> >Everyone, EVERYONE, that Merlin has ever met speaks well of
>> >> >themselves.
>> >> >NO one, no one merlin has ever met would call themselves weak or want
>> >> >to be pitied like this statement claims.
>>
>> >> LOL! Apparently you don't know anything about the basics
>> >> of atheism or agnosticism. A strong agnostic believes it is not
>> >> known whether or not God exists, and it cannot be known.
>> >> A weak agnostic believes that it is generally not known
>> >> whether or not God exists, but that some people might know if
>> >> God let them know.
Not to mention that "God" doesn't mean the same to non-believers of
any kind t hat it does to Christians.
If only they had the intelligence to substitute something they don't
believe like Odin into what they tell us about ourselves then use the
new version to describe themselves, they might come closer to
understanding why they keep getting us wrong.
It's not rocket science.
>> >But that's where the "weak agnosticism" argument falls apart:
>> >"...but...some people might know [God] if God let them know." That
>> >PRESUPPOSES the existence of a god.
>>
>> It considers the possibility. One thing a number of you people
>> seem to have in common is that you can't appreciate the fact
>> that it's necessary to consider the possibility, in order to consider
>> the possibility.
>
>Ah, Snookums, but I *have* considered the possibility. And come to
>the conclusion that there's no evidence supporting the notion that any
>god exists.
The trouble is that it's part of somebody else's religious paradigm,
not ours.
>And if you're talking about the tri-omni monotheistic god of
>christianity, judaism and islam, well, *that* god cannot exist, as it
>is logically impossible.
Which is why they dismiss logic - and not just there. It makes them
prey to all sorts of scams.
flower of romance
<dh@.> wrote in message news:ctoou4d8ndgj4rvdm...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:27:39 +0100, "flower of romance" <whoc...@me.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:g95cu45gmh03fjr38...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:51:36 +0100, "flower of romance"
>>> <whoc...@me.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news:3m6bu49gtsf1fb7u7...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:31:54 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>It is believed that the foundation of the Christian religion,
>>>>>>civilization
>>>>>>and morality is the Good Book. This is patently ridiculous because the
>>>>>>Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
>>>>>>human
>>>>>>and animal sacrifices,
>>>>>
>>>>> Which bibles advocate human sacrifice? The "Satanic Bible"
>>>>> doesn't even do that afaik...murder yes, but sacrifice no.
>>>>
>>>>LOL. Poor DH. tried for so long to persuade us that he wasn't a troll
>>>
>>> LOL. I point out that everyone is a troll.
>>
>>Alert! Alert. The troll posted yet again.
>
> I pointed out something else that you don't like.
Alert! Alert. The troll posted yet again. Do not speak to him. It is
fruitless. He has no reason or logic.
chibiabos
> The amount of faith a peson has that God does not
> exist is what determines how strong an atheist he or
> she is. If you have no faith that God does not exist,
> then you are NOT a strong atheist!
Pesons haven't even been discovered yet. How can they have (or not
have) faith?
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
merli...@gmail.com
>
> Not to mention that "God" doesn't mean the same to non-believers of
> any kind t hat it does to Christians.
yes it does, everyone speaks the same religious language.
it is embeded into the culture. your rebellion is against
christianity
and has nothign to do with god.
and the god of the christians is same god of the athiests when
athiests refer to god that is.
>
> If only they had the intelligence to substitute something they don't
> believe like Odin
same god differing name. all gods are names of the same god.
> into what they tell us about ourselves then use the
> new version to describe themselves,
all gods are alive, they may be ignored by humans they are still
available when we pray to them.
> they might come closer to
> understanding why they keep getting us wrong.
yes you are misunderstood, that does not mean you understand.
> It's not rocket science.
it is when you think there is more than one god that you are ignoring.
come at your faith differently, come at it as the center of the
universe for you not a rebellion
from this self same god everyone is worshiping.
as there is only one god, your rebellion is actually against the only
god there is.
> >Ah, Snookums, but I *have* considered the possibility. And come to
> >the conclusion that there's no evidence supporting the notion that any
> >god exists.
what were you tests? what did you do to find god?
did you give it a good college try?
or were you half hearted.
>
> The trouble is that it's part of somebody else's religious paradigm,
> not ours.
that is the language you know.
you are rebelling against the only god there is...........
> >And if you're talking about the tri-omni monotheistic god of
> >christianity, judaism and islam, well, *that* god cannot exist, as it
> >is logically impossible.
it is the same god. the hindus, judaism, christianity and islam.
it is all the same god. each group came out of the other.
> Which is why they dismiss logic - and not just there. It makes them
> prey to all sorts of scams.
and athiests can't be scammed? LOL
common guys you are doing what the religious to the rest of us.
you are treating the rest of us exactly as they born against
christians treat everyone.
you have the imperial superior natures that christians show.
you are not being explorers, rebels seldom are.
come up to a test for the knowledge of god.
come up to the only way merlin has found that find god may be
possible.
come up and take the test.
love as if your life depended on it. love everyone, all things.
and see what happens.
no one christian are athiest is willing to even try to experiement.
in love with the living gay jesus,
merlin
L.Roberts
> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
> I say:
>
> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
> I pray, amen.
Stupid! If the Jesus person ever did exist then he was a delusional
dope crazed fuck. How do I know this? It takes one to know one. I had
first hand experiences. I was, for a long long time, a highly active
druggie with a head full of the religi-idiotic shit I was force fed as
a child. That and some good drugs is enough to make anyone a delusion
fuck.
Now enough of your stupidity, OK?
L.Roberts
aa # 2258
fasgnadh
> On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
>> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
>> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
>> I say:
>>
>> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
>> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
>> I pray, amen.
>
Religious are invited to post in alt.atheism (when the
atheists are occasionally PRETENDING to be interested in
rational discussion! ;-)
# From: Haywire <paris...@gmail.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: You know what's really sad?
# Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 17:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
# Message-ID:
# <a760daf5-925d-4f44...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
#
# > I wish a believer with even half of a brain
# > would come here so we could have real discussions.
#
# Seconded.
# If there are any of you out there,
# come on in,
#
# we don't bite!
Lies!
Now we see why no believers are here, atheists are intolerant,
unable to engage in rational discussion, they merely subject
visitors to hateful abuse.
> Do I smell a troll about?
Well, God put your nose above your arse and hot air rises.. so yes!
--
# From: "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Merry Christmas
# Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:03 -0400
# Message-ID: <4953abb6$1$5460$9a56...@news.aliant.net>
#
# Hello Folks;
#
# I'd like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas
# and a safe holiday season. Phil 4:8.
#
# Cheers,
# John
# From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
# Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
# Message-ID: <o07dl41sa4t4jhof3...@4ax.com>
#
# "go fuck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
fasgnadh
> On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
>> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
>> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
>> I say:
>>
>> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
>> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
>> I pray, amen.
>
All of them are, when it comes to rational discourse.
fasgnadh
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:41:19 -0500, jemcd wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:09:50 -0700 (PDT), "cact...@gmail.com"
>> <cact...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
>>>> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
>>>> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
>>>> I say:
>>>>
>>>> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
>>>> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
>>>> I pray, amen.
>> And why only address jebus? Where is the thousands of other possible
>> gods? If you are going to cowardly hedge your god-bet, I'd think you
>> should whimper to every one of them, the one you leave out may be the
>> "one true" god.
>
> If you think about it realistically you might figure out
> that if God does exist then everyone who refers to him
> is referring to the same being regardless of what they
> call him or what they think about him.
The Church representing the largest number of Christians, after
centuries of resisting the idea, finally agrees;:
# "DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH
# TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
#
# NOSTRA AETATE
#
# PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
# ...
# 3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.
# They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself;
# merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5)
# who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to
# even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith
# of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God."
Of course the Christian Bible has proclaimed the Unity of God for
millennia, long before there were Christians to argue over it;
"Hear oh Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is One!"
Islam similarly proclaims that fundamental truth in the
Muslim's daily statement of faith in ONE GOD...
la illaha illa Allah
... based firmly on the Qu'ran;
# "And argue not with the People of the Scripture
# unless it be in ( a way) that is better,
# save with such of them as do wrong;
# and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us
# and revealed unto you;
# our God and your God is One,
# and unto Him we surrender."
#
# - The Qu'ran Sura 29 verse 46
> Then again, if
> you can't think about it realistically as no strong atheists
> are able to do, then there's no telling what sort of weird
> and clueless notions you might invent.
B^D
Atheist Bastets are likely to believe in anything;
# "it makes utterly no difference which goddesses or gods
# you believe in, as long as you have some...
# Me, I'd suggest Bastet." - Cary Kittrell
#
# (has he misspelled 'Kitten'? ;-)
--
The Atheist Catechism:
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." - G.K. Chesterton:
Published as part of the Official "Atheist Quote of the Month" liturgy
where all the Atheists gather to affirm what best expresses their beliefs:
# Subject: aa - The Polls are Open! AQOTM for Nov 2008
# Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:10:11 -0500
# From: *nemo* <nemo...@earthlink.diespam.com>
# Message-ID: <aKedndoPx4epAbPU...@earthlink.com>
#
# 1) The universe is ruled by a wizard, a zombie, and a ghost.
# Only the ghost is with us now, even though
# the zombie shacks up in our gall bladders and the wizard
# is omnipresent. You'll want to stay on the wizard's good
# side, because he has this thing for the aroma of
# flame-broiled human flesh. Oh, and this ripple and
# this Wheat Thin will turn into chunks of the zombie
# if a designated wizard's apprentice casts a spell on them.
# Thus enchanted, the cracker can be used to reveal the
# true demonic nature of Jews, much as a garlic pizza
# could out vampires (if we believed in such things,
# which we don't cuz that would be silly, dontcha know).
# We know these things to be true despite having not
# one damn reason to believe any of them.
#
# Authior By: DuhIdiot (Atheist )
# Nominated: Christopher A Lee (Atheist )
# Seconded: AZ Nomad (Atheist )
#
# Supported by the following card-carrying
# atheists:
#
# DuhIdiot (Atheist )
# Christopher A Lee (Atheist )
# AZ Nomad (Atheist )
# Robibnikoff (Atheist )
# Kilmir (Atheist )
# Smiler (Atheist )
# Douglas Berry (Atheist )
# pbamvv (Atheist )
# Uncle Vic (Atheist )
# johac (Atheist )
# Louis 14 (Atheist )
# Frank Mayhar (Atheist )
# Tim McGauchy (Atheist )
# Vipera Berus (Atheist )
# http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17445?context=latest
fasgnadh
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > Why the cross-post?
>
> Religious are invited to post in alt.atheism
Then fasgnadh is, in fairness, automatically inviting atheists and
agnostics to post anything in any and all religious newsgroups.
Particularly fasgnadh's home NG of alt.satanism.
fasgnadh
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
> >> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
> >> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
> >> I say:
> >>
> >> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
> >> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
> >> I pray, amen.
> >
> > I am a weak atheist
>
> All of them are, when it comes to rational discourse.
Only exceeded in weakness by those who argue that any one god trumps any
other god.
fasgnadh
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote his creed:
The universe is ruled by a wizard, a zombie, and a ghost.
Only the ghost is with us now, even though
the zombie shacks up in our gall bladders and the wizard
is omnipresent. You'll want to stay on the wizard's good
side, because he has this thing for the aroma of
flame-broiled human flesh. Oh, and this ripple and
this Wheat Thin will turn into chunks of the zombie
if a designated wizard's apprentice casts a spell on them.
Thus enchanted, the cracker can be used to reveal the
true demonic nature of Jews, much as a garlic pizza
could out vampires (if we believed in such things,
which we don't cuz that would be silly, dontcha know).
We know these things to be true despite having not
Yap
> dh@. wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:41:19 -0500, jemcd wrote:
>
> >> <cactus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>>> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
> >>>> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
> >>>> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
> >>>> I say:
>
> >>>> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
> >>>> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
> >>>> I pray, amen.
> >>> Why the cross-post? Do I smell a troll about?
> >> And why only address jebus? Where is the thousands of other possible
> >> gods? If you are going to cowardly hedge your god-bet, I'd think you
> >> should whimper to every one of them, the one you leave out may be the
> >> "one true" god.
>
> > If you think about it realistically you might figure out
> > that if God does exist then everyone who refers to him
> > is referring to the same being regardless of what they
> > call him or what they think about him.
>
> The Church representing the largest number of Christians, after
> centuries of resisting the idea, finally agrees;:
All the churches want are the money donated. Times are bad, the god
need money, you know.
>
> # "DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH
> # TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
> #
> # NOSTRA AETATE
> #
> # PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
> # ...
> # 3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.
> # They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself;
> # merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5)
> # who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to
> # even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith
> # of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God."
>
> Of course the Christian Bible has proclaimed the Unity of God for
> millennia, long before there were Christians to argue over it;
>
> "Hear oh Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is One!"
Lord is one!"
However much you wish to deny his words, they stand.
You can jump off a high rise, the words cannot be unsaid, the action
cannot be undone.
>
> Islam similarly proclaims that fundamental truth in the
> Muslim's daily statement of faith in ONE GOD...
>
> la illaha illa Allah
>
> ... based firmly on the Qu'ran;
Both religion are meant to control....look at islamic control of their
woman.
>
> # "And argue not with the People of the Scripture
> # unless it be in ( a way) that is better,
> # save with such of them as do wrong;
> # and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us
> # and revealed unto you;
> # our God and your God is One,
> # and unto Him we surrender."
> #
> # - The Qu'ran Sura 29 verse 46
>
> > Then again, if
> > you can't think about it realistically as no strong atheists
> > are able to do, then there's no telling what sort of weird
> > and clueless notions you might invent.
>
> B^D
>
> Atheist Bastets are likely to believe in anything;
humanity, unlike agnostic or religious people.
>
> # "it makes utterly no difference which goddesses or gods
> # you believe in, as long as you have some...
> # Me, I'd suggest Bastet." - Cary Kittrell
> #
> # (has he misspelled 'Kitten'? ;-)
>
> --
>
> The Atheist Catechism:
>
> "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
> — they believe in anything." - G.K. Chesterton:
>
> Published as part of the Official "Atheist Quote of the Month" liturgy
> where all the Atheists gather to affirm what best expresses their beliefs:
This simple fact escaped you, pity.
>
> # Subject: aa - The Polls are Open! AQOTM for Nov 2008
> # Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:10:11 -0500
> # Message-ID: <aKedndoPx4epAbPUnZ2dnUVZ_qXin...@earthlink.com>
You must have been hurt by me the most.
Hate is never an answer, facing reality is.
>
> #http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17445?context=latest
Yap
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:09:50 -0700 (PDT), "cactus...@gmail.com" <cactus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
> >> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
> >> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
> >> I say:
>
> >> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
> >> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
> >> I pray, amen.
>
> >Why the cross-post? Do I smell a troll about?
>
You mean bunny is real?
Or your god is unreal?
Yap
> cactus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
> >> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
> >> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
> >> I say:
>
> >> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
> >> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
> >> I pray, amen.
>
> > Why the cross-post?
>
> Religious are invited to post in alt.atheism (when the
> atheists are occasionally PRETENDING to be interested in
> rational discussion! ;-)
are sane.
However, since religion is insane, the obvious is no invitation.
And certainly not to an atheist-hater.
>
> # From: Haywire <parish.m...@gmail.com>
> # Newsgroups: alt.atheism
> # Subject: Re: You know what's really sad?
> # Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 17:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
> # Message-ID:
> #
> # > I wish a believer with even half of a brain
> # > would come here so we could have real discussions.
> #
> # Seconded.
> # If there are any of you out there,
> # come on in,
> #
> # we don't bite!
>
> Lies!
>
> Now we see why no believers are here, atheists are intolerant,
> unable to engage in rational discussion, they merely subject
> visitors to hateful abuse.
>
> > Do I smell a troll about?
>
> Well, God put your nose above your arse and hot air rises.. so yes!
>
> --
>
> # From: "John Fraser" <jfra...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> # Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
> # Subject: Merry Christmas
> # Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:03 -0400
> #
> # Hello Folks;
> #
> # I'd like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas
> # and a safe holiday season. Phil 4:8.
> #
> # Cheers,
> # John
>
> # From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
> # Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
> # Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
> # Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
Yap
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:31:54 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
> >> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
> >> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
> >> I say:
>
> >and the bibles are a foundation of quick sand.
>
> >There is NO - NADA _evidence the Bibles are the word of any Gods. They are
> >no more than the words of hundreds of errant religious leaders motivated to
> >impress and control their flock.
>
> >One of the problems with the accuracy of the Bibles is that when they were
> >copied over two thousand years ago, no marks of punctuation were used, no
> >distinction was made between lower case and upper case letters and more
> >bizarre to modern script, no spaces were used to separate words.
>
> >This kind of continuous writing was called "scriptuo continua"
>
> >'godisnowhere' could mean 'god is now here' or quit the opposite, 'god is no
> >where' depending on the spacing which was not used at the time. This left
> >accurate interpretation very unlikely if not impossible.
>
> >It is believed that the foundation of the Christian religion, civilization
> >and morality is the Good Book. This is patently ridiculous because the
> >Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, human
> >and animal sacrifices,
>
> Which bibles advocate human sacrifice? The "Satanic Bible"
> doesn't even do that afaik...murder yes, but sacrifice no.
>
> >genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
> >barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
> >certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
> >untrustworthy monster.
>
> If God does exist he communicated to those people who believed
> as they believed back then. He had to relate to them in ways that
> went along with what they believed to the extent that it wouldn't
> change things too much, if he didn't want to change things too much.
Such as OT to NT?
Attempts to hide and correct past stories and their mistake is
apparent. But you choose to ignore, or you are not yourself.
Your brain has been washed thoroughly before....I don;t want to be too
hard on you.
>
> >They are not even good fiction.
>
> If God had provided them with information they had previously
> not had then it would probably have been more evidence of his
> existence in later years than he wanted to make available. If he
> had told those people things like the Earth is round and not the
> center of the Universe, then it may very well have been stronger
> evidence of his existence than would allow people to think freely
> about the possibility. If he does exist, it seem obvios that he wants
> us to have that freedom, most likely because if we didn't have it
> we would be like his slaves.
Nature gives us the ability to be free, to be ourselves, to choose...
There is no god to come around in time of stress, such as recent quake
in Italy. Your RCC could one day be in ruins. Your god is not coming
to any aid, it is impotent, it is not here, it is never been here, it
is nothing, it does not exist.
>
> >There are 66 or more 'claimed original authors'. There are NO original
> >copies of the Bibles in existence. They are all ALTERED hand copies of
> >copies of copies etc. by hundreds of scribes over a period of thousands of
> >years. There is no accurate objective way to determine their authenticity or
> >historical accuracy.
>
> >The Bibles quite obviously contain mostly myths, fables, legends.
> >contradictions and totally impossible tales. NONE of the Bibles were written
> >during Jesus' 'CLAIMED LIFE TIME'. Time and distance was required to allow
> >the creation of fictional stories and the embellishment of history.
>
> The last I heard the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with later versions.
> If you know of areas where they disagree then please share the
> info and links.
Scrolls were human records of stories from ancient times.
Our Harry Potter story book will be scrolls or books in 5,000 years,
but will be fairy tales the same as your bible now.
>
> >There is also the matter of the Biblical canon itself. After all, ancient
> >Israel and the early church knew of many more religious books than the ones
> >that now constitute the Bible. For example, there were 50 gospels in
> >circulation at the time the New Testaments were chosen by church leaders,
> >yet only four
> >made it into the New Testament. Who decided which of the books would
> >become part of the Christian scriptures, and again, "Why?" Who decided,
> >"This book belongs... this book doesn't..."? What were their reasons?
> >What were their motives? How do we know if ANY of them were authentic?
>
> If God doesn't exist then of course none could be. If he does
> exist and he cares what's in his canonical books, then it makes
> sense to believe he was able to get them to turn out the way
> he wants them whether you can ever appreciate it or not.
Human effort is for all to see, to use, to benefit.
What has there been anything even remotely being god's effort?
The Katrina killed a lot of Christians, but your god is impotent.
We said he never existed, and this is a fact.
>
> >In addition there is evidence that the Bibles were altered by church leaders
> >to support their personal motives and ambitions..
>
> Like what evidence?
The ambition and motive to control, to rule, to govern...like the
promises of Obama or McCain.
>
> . . .
>
> >Figures like David and Solomon are considered "no more
> >historical than King Arthur."
>
> Then it's amazing that there are pictures of the ruins of
> Solomon's temple online, and equally amazing that people
> are digging through those ruins still today.
Temples were the product of past human.
Just like the mega-churches that will be ruins in the next century.
But are they being the house of god? There are being the houses of
loons and bigotry which by right should be used to help the poor.
Yap
> On Apr 20, 4:23 pm, Christopher A. Lee
>
>
>
> > Not to mention that "God" doesn't mean the same to non-believers of
> > any kind t hat it does to Christians.
>
> yes it does, everyone speaks the same religious language.
> it is embeded into the culture. your rebellion is against
> christianity
> and has nothign to do with god.
>
> and the god of the christians is same god of the athiests when
> athiests refer to god that is.
>
>
>
> > If only they had the intelligence to substitute something they don't
> > believe like Odin
>
> same god differing name. all gods are names of the same god.
So, when you speak of your god, your god cannot asummed to be allah.
>
> > into what they tell us about ourselves then use the
> > new version to describe themselves,
>
> all gods are alive, they may be ignored by humans they are still
> available when we pray to them.
are trying to make believe?
>
> > they might come closer to
> > understanding why they keep getting us wrong.
>
> yes you are misunderstood, that does not mean you understand.
>
> > It's not rocket science.
>
> it is when you think there is more than one god that you are ignoring.
> come at your faith differently, come at it as the center of the
> universe for you not a rebellion
> from this self same god everyone is worshiping.
What type of god you are praying to ?
>
> as there is only one god, your rebellion is actually against the only
> god there is.
The god that allows for Katrina to kill hundreds of innocent human and
believers?
>
> > >Ah, Snookums, but I *have* considered the possibility. And come to
> > >the conclusion that there's no evidence supporting the notion that any
> > >god exists.
>
> what were you tests? what did you do to find god?
> did you give it a good college try?
> or were you half hearted.
If you have a loss limb, you are forever an amputee.
If you are hungry, no god will bring you food.
What effort you think your god will come to your aid?
>
>
>
> > The trouble is that it's part of somebody else's religious paradigm,
> > not ours.
>
> that is the language you know.
> you are rebelling against the only god there is...........
benefit human. It deserve your worship?
>
> > >And if you're talking about the tri-omni monotheistic god of
> > >christianity, judaism and islam, well, *that* god cannot exist, as it
> > >is logically impossible.
>
> it is the same god. the hindus, judaism, christianity and islam.
> it is all the same god. each group came out of the other.
Or you believe in multi-god?
>
> > Which is why they dismiss logic - and not just there. It makes them
> > prey to all sorts of scams.
>
> and athiests can't be scammed? LOL
which is scammed by ancient conman.
>
> common guys you are doing what the religious to the rest of us.
> you are treating the rest of us exactly as they born against
> christians treat everyone.
> you have the imperial superior natures that christians show.
> you are not being explorers, rebels seldom are.
>
> come up to a test for the knowledge of god.
> come up to the only way merlin has found that find god may be
> possible.
> come up and take the test.
He has bought into the empty promises....
>
> love as if your life depended on it. love everyone, all things.
> and see what happens.
> no one christian are athiest is willing to even try to experiement.
>
> in love with the living gay jesus,
children....but definitely not for a zombie.
In fact, when you meet a zombie on the road that claimed to be your
JC, you will shout:"Help...help...help........." running the opposite
direction.
We atheist on the other hand will bring out our weapon wherever we
find to chop it into pieces and make sure we burn it too.
>
> merlin
Your m is upside down, your r is a typo, and you missed a g.
It should be corrected to "weakling".
Yap
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:54:36 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 15, 1:27 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:57:21 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
> >> >> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
> >> >> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
> >> >> I say:
>
> >> >> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
> >> >> I pray, amen.
>
>
> >> Maybe you are but I have no reason to, so I'm not.
>
> >> >If you're a weak agnostic, then I'm a virgin.
>
> >> ><Eyeroll>
>
> >> Then you're a virgin...or you're being dishonest about it...
>
> >I'm neither,
>
> You made a dishonest claim, and tisk tisk on you for it.
>
> >just like you're really not a weak agnostic.
>
> I am a weak agnostic. You certainly are comfortable
> with dishonesty.
>
> >You're here
> >to proselytize.
>
> I'm here to encourage people to consider significant things
> they want to disregard because they are outside of their mental
> comfort zone.
>
> >Your little prayer is a dead giveaway.
>
> >Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> >BAAWA Knight
> >EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> >skyeyes nine at cox dot net
>
> like that--especially on Easter--you poor stifled little fool.
Yet you prayed..
Where is the meaning of a agnostic?
Yap
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:41:07 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
> >On Apr 14, 8:53 pm, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> But the fact is, others do not care about your imagination.
>
> >When I'm posting to you, you'll know it but since I wasn't, the
> >feeling is mutual or did you think I cared about your imagination?
> >Hardly. I wish you well but really, I wonder why you think it's worth
> >the time, don't you have better things to do then worry about what I
> >imagine?
>
> >Go cry about Santa Clause now and the Easter Bunny... Oh, that's
> >right, they are fictional, so why waste your efforts on something you
> >know is imagination instead of something you have no proof of....
>
> These people will often display faith that God does not
> exist, and encourage it in others. At the same time, amusingly,
> these people will often wish to deny the faith they so clearly
> display and so clearly are trying to encourage in others.
> Sometimes--even more amusingly--they will deny their faith
> that Santa and the EB etc do not exist, causing a person
> to wonder why they would even WANT people to think they
> don't have any. Even more amusingly--and extremely
> pathetically--these people will sometimes wish to deny their
> faith in EVERYTHING they have faith in. It's fun to test them,
> and to tease them about their obvious faith that they're so
> amusingly ashamed of...
We really want you and this Snow guy to forget about poisoning our
next generation with lies that contained in the bible.
Or must you want to children to lie all their lives?
Yap
>
> >Maybe you will find this amusing . . . . . . . . . :
>
> >Christians hold that their faith does good,
>
> Their faith teaches to be kind and respectful of others,
> and to not steal from them or kill them. It also teaches to
> help people who need help, and afaik there are more
> Christian human aid organizations than any other type.
> Whether or not that's "good" is a matter of personal
> opinion. You might not think it's good that Christians
> help other people, but if a Christian organization helps
> you some day you might be able to appreciate some
> "good" in that.
What do you make out of the fact that Christians had been killing all
the Red Indians in North and South America for their lands?
Talking of faith teaching......
>
> >but other faiths do harm. At any rate, they
> >hold this about the Communist faith. What I wish to maintain is that all faiths do harm.
> >We may define 'faith' as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence.
>
> Faith is the degree of confidence you have that
> something you have chosen to believe is correct.
> Denying your faith won't make it go away nor will
> it make you seem more knowledgeable...quite the
> opposite in fact. For those of us who recognise the
> fact that everyone has faith in a number of things,
> seeing people deny that they have any is like watching
> something you know is fake like a cartoon, or something
> you know is fantasy like Harry Potter, and then have it
> try to persuade you that it's real...like interaction with
> a cartoon or fantasy...
Isn't faith the same as you fantasied about the existence of a god?
But a god that had never been beneficial to human, but quite the
opposite?
>
> >When
> >there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith.' We do not speak of faith that two and two are
> >four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion
> >for evidence.
> >[Bertrand Russell]
>
> In contrast to the cartoon: You have faith that the
> Earth will continue to orbit the sun, probably for the
> rest of your life.
This is based on scientific facts and not on faith, and you know it.
Why confused?
fasgnadh
Yes, God clearly loves Diversity, not a single snowflake the same as
any other.. but this one represents the largest number of Christians,
just like atheism used to represent the majority of shithole tyrannies
but is now so tiny impotent and irrelevant that only 0.7% of Americans
claim membership! B^D
>> # "DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH
>> # TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
>> #
>> # NOSTRA AETATE
>> #
>> # PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
>> # ...
>> # 3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.
>> # They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself;
>> # merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5)
>> # who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to
>> # even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith
>> # of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God."
>>
>> Of course the Christian Bible has proclaimed the Unity of God for
>> millennia, long before there were Christians to argue over it;
>>
>> "Hear oh Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is One!"
>
> Well, your Obama say:" Hear oh America, the Lord thy president, the
> Lord is one!"
cite please. it's not that we don't trust you, it's just that
everything you say is either bullshit or lies.
> However much you wish to deny his words, they stand.
Not anywhere we can see them. B^)
>> Islam similarly proclaims that fundamental truth in the
>> Muslim's daily statement of faith in ONE GOD...
>>
>> la illaha illa Allah
>>
>> ... based firmly on the Qu'ran;
>
> Islam is the subsect of christianity.
You are the subset of idiocy.
>> # "And argue not with the People of the Scripture
>> # unless it be in ( a way) that is better,
>> # save with such of them as do wrong;
>> # and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us
>> # and revealed unto you;
>> # our God and your God is One,
>> # and unto Him we surrender."
>> #
>> # - The Qu'ran Sura 29 verse 46
>>
>>> Then again, if
>>> you can't think about it realistically as no strong atheists
>>> are able to do, then there's no telling what sort of weird
>>> and clueless notions you might invent.
>> B^D
>>
>> Atheist Bastets are likely to believe in anything;
>>
you must have been part of the Donkey Vote, Eyore.
fasgnadh
> On Apr 22, 3:47 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> cactus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
>>>> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
>>>> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
>>>> I say:
>>>> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
>>>> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
>>>> I pray, amen.
>>> Why the cross-post?
>>
>> Religious are invited to post in alt.atheism (when the
>> atheists are occasionally PRETENDING to be interested in
>> rational discussion! ;-)
> There is no extension of invitation to religious people unless
There was no qualification placed on the invitation you lying atheist;
>> # From: Haywire <parish.m...@gmail.com>
>> # Newsgroups: alt.atheism
>> # Subject: Re: You know what's really sad?
>> # Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 17:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
>> # Message-ID:
>> # <a760daf5-925d-4f44-8003-2104bc25e...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
>> #
>> # > I wish a believer with even half of a brain
>> # > would come here so we could have real discussions.
>> #
>> # Seconded.
>> # If there are any of you out there,
>> # come on in,
>> #
>> # we don't bite!
>>
>> Lies!
>>
>> Now we see why no believers are here, atheists are intolerant,
>> unable to engage in rational discussion, they merely subject
>> visitors to hateful abuse.
>
> You are the one
Sorry, I'm straight and spoken for, you will have to stick with
your banjo and your barnyard animals!
>>> Do I smell a troll about?
>>
>> Well, God put your nose above your arse and hot air rises.. so yes!
>
> Ah,
I see you like to savour the bouquet of his arse as well!
Another atheist cake boy!
> with nose above the arse.
Sounds like yours is firmly jammed IN his.
>> --
>>
>> # From: "John Fraser" <jfra...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>> # Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
>> # Subject: Merry Christmas
>> # Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:03 -0400
>> # Message-ID: <4953abb6$1$5460$9a566...@news.aliant.net>
>> #
>> # Hello Folks;
>> #
>> # I'd like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas
>> # and a safe holiday season. Phil 4:8.
>> #
>> # Cheers,
>> # John
>>
>> # From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
>> # Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
>> # Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
>> # Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
>> # Message-ID: <o07dl41sa4t4jhof3bmf0dog125nccm...@4ax.com>
>> #
>> # "go fuck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
>
--
Subject: AQOTM fraud is a clear Breach of AQOTM RULES!!!! 8^o
Quotemeister *nemo*toad implicated! 8^o
Message-ID: <49847258$0$3253$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au>
BwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
http://theatreinbrussels.com/ecc/images/stories/Productions/animalfarm-web.png
dh
>It is an ancient <dh@.>, and he posteth:
>
>> The amount of faith a peson has that God does not
>> exist is what determines how strong an atheist he or
>> she is.
>
>It doesn't take a shred of faith to know
LOL! Faith is the degree of confidence you have that
what you think is correct. Saying you "know" something
is an extremely clear display that you have very strong
faith in whatever you're claiming to be the case.
>categorically that God does not
>exist. Just a modicum of intellectual honesty.
In contrast to that: If God does not exist, there is no
way for anyone to know he does not. Denying your faith
that he does not exist is dishonest, and saying you know
he does not exist is dishonest. All you have proven is that
you're very comfortable making dishonest claims...unless
you really are ignorant enough to believe them that is.
dh
>In article <otoou4d6m9tbovnem...@4ax.com>, <dh@.> wrote:
>
>> The amount of faith a peson has that God does not
>> exist is what determines how strong an atheist he or
>> she is. If you have no faith that God does not exist,
>> then you are NOT a strong atheist!
>
>Pesons haven't even been discovered yet.
You wussed by bitching about a spelling mistake.
How lame.
>How can they have (or not have) faith?
>
>-chib
A person must have faith that God does not exist
in order to be a strong atheist. If they don't have
faith in that, they are something else instead.
WangoTango
It takes no faith to require evidence before belief.
It really is that simple.
Wrapping your delusion up in pseudoscience and double talk just bares
you out as the intellectual vacuum that you are.
dh
You haven't done it realistically. If you had you would still be
able to, which you quite obviously can not. Once you learn to,
then you can do it...it's not something you un-learn...it's like riding
a bike...meaning that you've never learned to do it. You probably
never will either, but instead will probably continue thinking that
you did learn to but somehow have un-learned, or whatever
screwed up interpretation you have of what actually took place.
>And come to
>the conclusion that there's no evidence supporting the notion that any
>god exists.
You never learned to think realistically about the possibility.
If you had, you would recognise the fact that what humans
have learned to do is evidence that gods do exist. Whether
or not any of them are associated with this planet is more of
a question, but thinking about it realistically shows us it's more
likely that gods do exist in some places than it is that there are
none anywhere.
>And if you're talking about the tri-omni monotheistic god of
>christianity, judaism and islam, well, *that* god cannot exist, as it
>is logically impossible.
Not it's certainly not. Just because you can't comprehend
how it could be doesn't make it impossible. You can't build
a microwave oven, so do you think they are logically impossible
too? It would be the same sort of thing if you did, so try to see
if you can understand how...
>If you consider something and find there's no evidence to support it,
>there's no reason to keep considering it. If new evidence comes in,
>you can always re-open your considerations.
You can't consider any evidence, which indicates you'll
probably never be able to consider any evidence. If you're
ever going to, when do you think it might happen and wtf
are you waiting for?
>So: do you have any evidence that any god exists? If so, please post
>it here, and I'll reconsider the possibility that a god exists.
The combined facts that we're discussing this all over
the planet by tapping our fingers and there are many billions
of planets, are evidence that gods exist. The facts that the
Bible still exists, many people still have faith in God and
Jesus, humans developed language, humans developed
the ability to read and right, humans are advancing as
quickly as they have been, etc are evidence to me that there
is a God associated with this planet whether there actually
is one or not. Also things that happen in daily life are
evidence to me that there could be something influencing
events other than just random chance. Often it's more the
WAY things happen than it is the things that happen...the
timing, etc...
>If you do not have such evidence, kindly FOAD out of alt.atheism, as
>you are just wasting our time and electrons.
You have enough of both to spend on trying not to
think it appears, or maybe your enjoyment is more in
encouraging other people to quit thinking.
>> If you can't do it then I guess it does make sense
>> that you can't appreciate the fact--*I guess*--but it's impossible
>> to relate to being that clueless when you're not, which I'm not
>> so I'll never understand completely why you can't comprehend.
>>
>> >And as I read your stuff, it's
>> >quite clear that there's only one god you are weakly agnostic *about*
>> >- the biblical god, and specifically christian.
>>
>> If God does exist I've chosen to believe he did do as we
>> are told he did as Christ.
>
>Which is the meat of the problem, isn't it, Duckie? You've *chosen*
>to believe.
LOL! So have you, and it is hilarious that you believe what
you've chosen to believe is so incredibly superior to what I
have...LOL...
>You aren't really "considering" any evidence -
Sure I am. Having this discussion with you is evidence,
for instance.
>for
>instance, evidence indicating that another god might exist, or a
>number of other gods, or that it is logically impossible for the judeo-
>christian-islamist god to exist. You've just chosen to believe.
>
>Well, I've chosen to consider the evidence, and unfortunately, there
>isn't any. If you've got some, I'll consider it.
You've already shown that you can consider none, so the
question has become: Are you really so clueless as to think
you can get me to believe you can do something you've
clearly shown you can not, or do you still think you may
somehow be able to do it some day and if so what do you
think you're waiting for?
>However, I am
>unable to believe in something if there's no evidence to support its
>existence, so you will pardon me if I don't join your little faith-
>fest.
I don't have faith one way or the other, but people like you
never seem to be able to comprehend that one either.
>And that's what really gets you, isn't it? We won't validate your
>lifestyle choice (to believe) by making the same one, and that makes
>you feel scared and insecure.
LOL!!! If you believe that you really don't have much if any
grip on reality at all.
>Well, tough noogies. Get over it.
Obviously you're never going to be good at this, but try
to get at least some of the easiest and most basic aspects
straight for a change as long as your trying to play with it.
One of the basics you need to get straight in order to get
a better understanding is that:
Some of us can consider the possibility you have put your
own faith in AND MORE. Both weak and strong agnostics
can do it, and so can weak atheists. Believers in God do
not consider the possibility that you put your faith in, but
they do consider more than you do. Try to get at least
that much basic information straight, and it will help you
develop a more realistic interpretation of wtf is going on.
>> >So you aren't
>> >*really* a weak agnostic -
>>
>> Yes I am. I might be the only one you've ever encountered,
>> but I am one now and have been for several years.
>>
>> >you're really a believer
>>
>> No. If I were then I wouldn't consider the possibility that there
>> is no God associated with this planet, meaning I would no longer
>> be a weak agnostic. I WAS a believer, and then tried to be a
>> strong atheist but after trying for a few years I learned that I'm
>> really a weak agnonstic, so I accepted the fact and go from there.
>
>You just confessed above that it's your inclination to believe in the
>bible god. You're just playing word-games.
Here's another basic for you to try to learn to comprehend:
If God exists then all who refer to him refer to the same being
regardless of what they call him or what they think about him.
>If you really were a weak atheist,
LOL...you poor thing... I'm a weak agnostic, but I guess there's
no hope of you ever getting that one straight.
>you'd be equally indecisive about Thor and Athena and Spider
>Grandmother as you are about Yahweh.
Not necessarily. You really don't have any clue what's going
on at all. I'm starting to feel sorry for you.
>But you're not.
I have more faith that things we know to be bullshit are bullshit,
than I do that things we don't know whether or not are bullshit
are bullshit. That's probably more than you can appreciate too,
but it's the way it is for some people like myself. There are probably
people in your life who could help you understand things like that,
if you print them out and ask around a little bit.
>You claim to be an agnostic,
Ahh...so it's looking like you may be more dishonest than you
are honestly clueless.
>but have confessed that the only god you can associate
>with this planet is Yahweh. That's not agnosticism.
Yes it is. Are you too clueless to understand how, or can
you comprehend but are dishonestly pretending you can't?
Either way it's a pathetic thing.
>That's "let me
>try to wear this label while I proselytize to the atheists."
>
>And by the way? Nobody *tries* to be a strong atheist, dumbass. You
>are what you are. Either you simply lack a belief in any god, in
>which case you're a weak atheist;
What? You can understand the difference? If so then
I guess instead of feeling sorry for you for being so clueless
I should resent the fact that you're dishonestly pretending
that you are.
>or you actively disbelieve in any
>god, in which case you're a strong atheist.
Meaning you have put faith you deny in a guess that
you probably also want to deny.
>To quote Yoda, there is no "try."
Which to you apparently means: Do and deny.
>> >who is here to play word games with us.
>>
>> Actually I'm here to challenge your little brains and encourage
>> you to play "games" with them, but you can't get past your lack
>> of understanding regarding terminology, which is one thing that's
>> keeping you rooted in place. It's not the only thing though, and
>> even IF!!! you ever do learn to distinguish between different
>> types of atheism and/or agnosticism you almost certainly still
>> won't be able to move on with your own thinking and lack of.
>
>I understand the differences much better than you do.
No you don't. If someone like you can understand it at all it's
amazing. More likely you just parrot something someone told
you one time without being able to grasp the significance.
>You're a
>believer playing at being an agnostic,
No, I'm an agnostic who considers what very little you're
capable of considering AND MORE.
>that much is crystal-clear from your posts.
No it's not, so the question again is whether you are really
too stupid to comprehend, or you're dishonestly pretending
that you are for whatever reason(s).
>> >Are you as "weakly agnostic" about the existence of Zeus?
>>
>> If a creator exists then he does, regardless of what who calls
>> him and what who thinks about him. That's ones so easy even
>> a strong atheist should be able to learn to appreciate it, but
>> somehow they don't seem to grasp that one either.
>
>All father gods do not have the same attributes. Zeus did not have
>omni-attributes claimed for Yahweh.
>
>But if using Zeus confuses you, then lets try some other gods. Are
>you weakly agnostic concerning Athena? Ganesh? Kali? Spider
>Grandmother?
If a creator exists then he does, regardless of what who calls
him and what who thinks about him. You indicate that you are
too clueless to comprehend that, but are you or are you just being
dishonest and pretending to be? If you truly are then there's hope
you can learn to appreciate it some day if you ever want to. If you
do then print it out and ask people you respect--if there are any--to
try to help you understand. If you do understand but are dishonestly
pretending you can't, then what hope is there that you'll ever be
honest enough to admit it and move on? That's right...there's almost
no hope of that at all.
>> >Might you
>> >come to know Thor, if Thor lets you know him?
>>
>> If so, so. That's another one that's so easy even you SHOULD
>> be able to comprehend...
>
>I'm supposed to comprehend "If so, so"
That means if it happens then it happens. Awww...that one's more
than you can comprehend again, is it? You poor little dunce. Can you
tie your own shoes yet?
>when you said upthread that the
>only god you could associate with this planet was the bible god?
What DID I explain to you about that Duncy, do you have any
idea at all?
>Methinks you're getting a bit frayed at the nerves.
People often have absurd ideas like that about things they're
not able to comprehend much less appreciate. You're not unlike
a possum trying to figure out a busy international airport...
Christopher A. Lee
<asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <ub2uu410q46ma15ph...@4ax.com>, dh@. says...
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:16:20 +0100, Sanity's Little Helper <elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
>>
>> >It is an ancient <dh@.>, and he posteth:
>> >
>> >> The amount of faith a peson has that God does not
>> >> exist is what determines how strong an atheist he or
>> >> she is.
What a fucking moron.
>> >It doesn't take a shred of faith to know
>>
>> LOL! Faith is the degree of confidence you have that
>> what you think is correct. Saying you "know" something
>> is an extremely clear display that you have very strong
>> faith in whatever you're claiming to be the case.
>>
>> >categorically that God does not
>> >exist. Just a modicum of intellectual honesty.
It's an abstract logic exercise on something irrelevant that these
imbeciles can't keep to themselves.
How many times does need to be reminded?
>> In contrast to that: If God does not exist, there is no
What's "God" in the real world beyond your religion, imbecile?
>> way for anyone to know he does not. Denying your faith
>> that he does not exist is dishonest, and saying you know
>> he does not exist is dishonest. All you have proven is that
>> you're very comfortable making dishonest claims...unless
>> you really are ignorant enough to believe them that is.
A liar as well as an idiot.
>Still talking, and thinking, in circles I see.
>It takes no faith to require evidence before belief.
>It really is that simple.
>Wrapping your delusion up in pseudoscience and double talk just bares
>you out as the intellectual vacuum that you are.
What is it with these wankers?
Why can't they grasp the obvious, that it's merely somebody else's
religious belief?
So we haven't got anything to "have faith it doesn't exist".
Do they honestly not understand just how irrelevant the belief-object
of somebody else's religion is?
It's hardly rocket science.
Is it any wonder they get treated like the idiots they tell us they
are?
dh
>On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:16:38 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Apr 20, 4:36 am, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:01:34 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> >On Apr 15, 10:20 am, dh@. wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:56:11 -0700 (PDT), merlina...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> >> >dear , dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >> I am a weak agnostic.
>>>
>>> >> >> >who self describes themselves like this?
>>>
>>> >> >> Weak agnostics and people who want other people
>>> >> >> to believe they are.
>>>
>>> >> >Everyone, EVERYONE, that Merlin has ever met speaks well of
>>> >> >themselves.
>>> >> >NO one, no one merlin has ever met would call themselves weak or want
>>> >> >to be pitied like this statement claims.
>>>
>>> >> LOL! Apparently you don't know anything about the basics
>>> >> of atheism or agnosticism. A strong agnostic believes it is not
>>> >> known whether or not God exists, and it cannot be known.
>>> >> A weak agnostic believes that it is generally not known
>>> >> whether or not God exists, but that some people might know if
>>> >> God let them know.
>
>Not to mention that "God" doesn't mean the same to non-believers of
>any kind t hat it does to Christians.
It means different things to different people. It means different
things to different Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc...
>If only they had the intelligence to substitute something they don't
>believe like Odin into what they tell us about ourselves then use the
>new version to describe themselves, they might come closer to
>understanding why they keep getting us wrong.
The amount of faith you have that God does not exist is what
determines how strong an atheist you are. If you have no faith,
then you are not a strong atheist.
>It's not rocket science.
No, as I explained it's very easy.
>>> >But that's where the "weak agnosticism" argument falls apart:
>>> >"...but...some people might know [God] if God let them know." That
>>> >PRESUPPOSES the existence of a god.
>>>
>>> It considers the possibility. One thing a number of you people
>>> seem to have in common is that you can't appreciate the fact
>>> that it's necessary to consider the possibility, in order to consider
>>> the possibility.
>>
>>Ah, Snookums, but I *have* considered the possibility. And come to
>>the conclusion that there's no evidence supporting the notion that any
>>god exists.
>
>The trouble is that it's part of somebody else's religious paradigm,
>not ours.
What's yours, do you have any idea?
dh
>In article <6hnou4duevupfp3be...@4ax.com>, dh@. says...
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with a weak agnostic making a prayer
>> like that--especially on Easter--you poor stifled little fool.
>>
>>
>Well, to make sure that you accept that there is a possibility of a
>god/gods you had better make sure to cover all your bases and make
>prayers and offering for ALL of the various gods.
LOL. If God exists I have confidence he's not too ignorant to
figure out who is praying to him whenever he cares, if he ever does.
>Your limiting
>yourself to a single religion shows that you are not open to the
>possibility of there being many gods
There may be many gods, but I doubt there are many of them
associated with this planet.
dh
>On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:59:49 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:27:39 +0100, "flower of romance" <whoc...@me.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:g95cu45gmh03fjr38...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:51:36 +0100, "flower of romance" <whoc...@me.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:3m6bu49gtsf1fb7u7...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:31:54 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is believed that the foundation of the Christian religion,
>>>>>>>civilization
>>>>>>>and morality is the Good Book. This is patently ridiculous because the
>>>>>>>Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
>>>>>>>human
>>>>>>>and animal sacrifices,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which bibles advocate human sacrifice? The "Satanic Bible"
>>>>>> doesn't even do that afaik...murder yes, but sacrifice no.
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL. Poor DH. tried for so long to persuade us that he wasn't a troll
>>>>
>>>> LOL. I point out that everyone is a troll.
>>>
>>>Alert! Alert. The troll posted yet again.
>>
>> I pointed out something else that you don't like. "You" don't want
>>to think for whatever reasons, but apparently you have a brain that
>>does which is one way you fight against yourself. Hmmm...that would
>>explain why you want people to believe you can think beyond the
>>one possibility you appear to have put your faith in, and which you
>>insult other people for thinking beyond.
>
>Alert! Alert. The troll posted yet again. Do not speak to him. It is
>fruitless. He has no reason or logic.
I point out that you don't, and can't even make an attempt.
You claim you can consider more than the one possibility,
then clearly show that you can not.
dh
>On Apr 20, 4:23 pm, Christopher A. Lee
>>
>> Not to mention that "God" doesn't mean the same to non-believers of
>> any kind t hat it does to Christians.
>
>yes it does, everyone speaks the same religious language.
>it is embeded into the culture. your rebellion is against
>christianity
>and has nothign to do with god.
>
>and the god of the christians is same god of the athiests when
>athiests refer to god that is.
>>
>> If only they had the intelligence to substitute something they don't
>> believe like Odin
>
>same god differing name. all gods are names of the same god.
For some reason people claiming to be strong atheists don't
seem able to comprehend that basic aspect, much less
appreciate it.
>> into what they tell us about ourselves then use the
>> new version to describe themselves,
>
>all gods are alive, they may be ignored by humans they are still
>available when we pray to them.
>
>> they might come closer to
>> understanding why they keep getting us wrong.
>
>yes you are misunderstood, that does not mean you understand.
They are necessarily the most clueless people on Earth.
Not only do they not comprehend things which other
people easily understand and appreciate the significance
of in regards to God, but they don't even know the basics
about atheism. The strength of a strong atheist is determined
by the amount of faith he or she has that they have made
the correct guess about God not existing. If they have no
faith that he doesn't exist, then they are a weak atheist.
If they not only have no faith that he does not exist but
believe that he does exist, then they're a believer.... A
person is a strong atheist ONLY if he or she has some
degree of faith that God does not exist.
>> It's not rocket science.
>
>it is when you think there is more than one god that you are ignoring.
>come at your faith differently, come at it as the center of the
>universe for you not a rebellion
>from this self same god everyone is worshiping.
They can't think about the possibility in a realistic
way...they just can't do it or they would be doing it as
people who are doing it are doing it... Whether they
can't do it because somehow other people's beliefs
make it impossible for them or whatever other lame
reason(s) that they can't do it, they just can't do it.
>as there is only one god, your rebellion is actually against the only
>god there is.
There may be many gods. Most of the time it seems
strong atheists rebellion is against the possibility of
any God(s) being associated with this planet, probably
the whole star system, maybe the entire galaxy, and
maybe even the entire universe. Some of these people
act as if they might not be entirely certain that there are
no gods associated with any planets anywhere though
...they appear able to comprehend the possibility that
there could be beings far more advanced than humans
some place(s) in this huge universe.
>> >Ah, Snookums, but I *have* considered the possibility. And come to
>> >the conclusion that there's no evidence supporting the notion that any
>> >god exists.
>
>what were you tests? what did you do to find god?
>did you give it a good college try?
>or were you half hearted.
There's nothing anyone can do to look or test for God.
The idea is absurd. You can pretend to, but that's as far
as a person can go with it.
dh
>On Apr 20, 7:30 am, dh@.
>
>> >you have not proven anything you have said is honest.
>>
>> Try explaining what you want people to believe the difference
>> between strong and weak atheism is. Go:
>
>Honesty is an experience, not a belief system.
>
>> >you have quoted wiki,
>>
>> Try telling us what you want people who believe God does
>> not exist to be called, if not strong atheists. Go:
>
>strength is a judgement. weakness is a judgement.
>not judging is the hardest thing of all.
>
>> >you have not proven anything you have said is honest.
>>
>> Try explaining what you want people to believe the difference
>> between strong and weak ateism is. Go:
>
>honesty is not about proving anything. it is a way of life.
You dishonestly want people to believe the difference is something
that it is not, yet you can't explain what you want them to believe it is
even when someone challenges you to try.
>> Having presented my position and made a prayer of thanks.
>> This "religious" stuff really does baffle some of you poor people
>> doesn't it.
>
>who youse talking to hons?
I'm pointing it out to anyone that reads it.
>> But then I guess if it didn't, you'd be able to think about
>> it realistically...or at least in a way that would feel realistic to you.
>
>ah the new savior of us all?
I point out things people don't want to think about. If
you learn to and it helps you move on, then good.
>we have so many preachers on Christnet
>trying to save others and not themselves.
There are probably about as many or more trying to
unsave people too.
>> 1. This shows you can't appreciate or probably even comprehend
>> the difference between strong and weak agnosticism:
>
>judgments are unnecessary.
You still show you can't appreciate it and probably can't
comprehend.
>be anything you want.
>a good hunter and a bad hunter is still hunters.
A hunter who doesn't hunt is not really a hunter. An
atheist with no faith is not a strong atheist.
>> 2. and this is dishonesty in an attempt to oppose the meaning
>> of weak ateism:
>
>it is a perception not a fact.
What you snipped is exactly what I said it is.
>> 3. and here's some insulting bullshit attacking me simply for pointing
>> out that I'm a weak agnostic:
>
>name one insulting thing merlin has written to you?
Put back what you snipped and let's see if there's anything
that could be considered insulting about it.
>all Merlin is asking is that you love and see that it does work..
Love what? Work how?
>> >when a christian does not act like jesus teaches, that is being anti
>> >jesus and anti christ.
>>
>> Not necessarily. Sometimes it is and sometimes not, so again
>> you were dishonest. Let's call this one #4.
>
>name an instant then where this has happened.
When a person uses fowl language but not against God
or Jesus. Also when people get drunk, but not against God
or Jesus.
>> Maybe
>
>maybe is faith based.
You're dishonest snipping makes your probably dishonest
claim seem meaningless, which it probably is.
>> some people know there is and maybe no one knows.
>> The fact that I appreciate and take into consideration that
>> particular fact is what makes me a weak agnostic instead
>> of a strong one...a strong one believes no one can know.
>> I recognise that some people could know if God does exist,
>> but no one can know if he does not. Even if he doesn't no
>> one can know it but they have simply guessed correctly,
>> and--amusingly--they never will know it.
>
>can't you move on from this......
LOL! Do you think it has changed, or maybe that it's
somehow going to sometime in the near future?
>you refuse to love as Merlin suggested.
>you refuse to even try to love as Merlin suggested.
Love what? You don't love me, even if you claim you do.
You can't. I can't love you. To say I do or could even try
would be dishonest, just as if you said you love me that also
would be dishonest. By pretending to, you destroy the meaning
and significance of the word as you have already tried to do
with the terms: anti christ, God, Christ, and whatever all else
you've tried doing it to. You've also been attempting to do it
with "love" this whole time.
>This 'experiement' is the start of an adventure you are refusing.
>
>> Then you're saying everyone is the anti christ,
>
>you are so full of absolutes.
>do you not see the middle at all?
You're the one being the extremist and I'm pointing it out,
and now you're dishonestly trying to turn it around and make
it appear that I'm the extremist instead of you. You do that
a lot, we see.
>> meaning that
>> you're removing all meaning and significance from the term, which
>> is certainly a form of dishonesty. This one can be #6.
>
>what are youse talking about hons.
You dishonestly snipped it. Put it back to see which
particular example of you doing that I was referring to
at the time.
>> What I did was
>
>what you are doing........
>
>> point out how you were doing what you
>> wanted to dishonestly bitch at me for,
>
>there is no bitching,
You were bitching about something, and then
dishonestly snipped what you were bitching about.
>these are your words.
>Merlin is asking you to love till hurts
>and you call that bitching at you? LOL.
>
>> and now you're trying
>> to turn it around
>
>there is always more than one side to everything.
>turn the thought around on itself see what happens.
You tried a dishonest trick and I pointed it out.
>> and dishonestly put it on me again.
>
>again, you are not happy. no one can make you happy.
>
>> Since
>> this is really a double-dishonesty it can be #7 & #8.
>
>you have an opportunity to discuss the reality of god.
>you have an opportunity to find god for yourself through love.
>and you sit on your hands in stuborn pursuit of concepts of honesty
>instead?
Pointing out the dishonesties of people in ngs is a different
thing than trying to develop a relationship with God, unless
he wants me to point out the dishonesties and I'm doint what
he wants me to do.
>> So according to you the term anti christ
>
>anyone that believes and follows jesus tho does not do as jesus
>teaches.
>
>> and the term
>> god no longer have any significant meaning at all.
>
>we are not talking about meaning of things.
>we are talking about the reality of god.
>we are talking about methods to get god more involved directly in our
>lives.
Now you're changing the subject, but it's better than some
of your other tricks.
>>To
>> me that's very dishonest,
>
>every holy book has a thousand meanings for every important passage.
>we can discuss the true meaning of the meaning of everything
>while doing nothing to find out.
>
>try to love a little even?
>
>> though so far I can still consider
>> the possibility that it somehow may not seem that way to
>> you, maybe, I guess, maybe...
>
>what are you saying?
I'm saying that even though what you claim would make
the terms: anti christ, God, Christ, love, and whatever else
meaningless, you MIGHT honestly not be able to comprehend
why and therefore truly unaware of what you're really suggesting.
>> It's an attempt at a dishonest
>> trick for some odd reason whether you can recognise it
>> as such or not though, so we'll call this one #9.
>
>you can make up laws to govern yourself all you want.
>we got too many laws on the books when the christians controlled the
>bush government.
>
>> >the whole universe is made up of the same substance.
>>
>> And what is it you want people to think that is, do you
>> know?
>
>that someone blew their nose and got it all over the universe?
Now you're trying to make the term universe meaningless
as well. So at this point you're trying to make the terms:
anti christ, God, Christ, love, universe, and whatever else
meaningless.
>> >merlin does not join groups.
>> >you can join the weak agnostic group
>>
>> LOL. I am a weak agnostic.
>
>really you can join any group you want.
If God exists, I have confidence that he has me believing
what he wants me to believe, as much as he cares to influence
what that is.
>it may define who you think you want to be.
>it may not contain all your identy.
I consider the possibilities that God does and does not
exist. I also believe that if God does exist, he has let some
people know of his existence. That makes me a weak
agnonstic. I also accept Christ as my savior if he exists,
and if he will be. That might make me a Christian, and
I hope it does, but I'm still a weak agnostic even if so.
>and believing or not believing in god, does not take our souls away.
>
>> I didn't join the group because
>> I liked the name, but instead found the term that applies to
>> what I believe.
>
>it is judgement.
It's what I believe, as I said.
>> At first I thought I was a weak atheist because
>> I don't have a belief, and I didn't like being associated with
>> that term. But! I was closer to a weak atheist than a strong
>> agnostic, and at the time I didn't know about the term weak
>> agnosticism so I was wrong for a time, but (again) now I know
>> the term that applies to me now and has for the past several
>> years.
>
>having been agnostic, it was a refuge and a state of being, yes.
It's what I believe, not taking refuge. Taking refuge is what
strong atheists do, and then they amusingly want to deny it
even as they do.
>> >it isn't merlin's problem or business.
>>
>> >> Unless you can give examples of me telling you who I think is
>> >> not saved, we have another example of you being dishonest.
>>
>> >have you tried to love?
>>
>> That's not an example.
>
>take the step into the frightening future.
>dare to love, and see what happens.
>you will be amazed.
>nothing Merlin can tell you will match your own experiences.
>
>try puppy love even.
It would be dishonest to say I love everyone, or even
everyone I know. Why lie about that? Oh, that's right,
you are more comfortable with dishonesty than with
reality, so being dishonest about who and what you
love wouldn't be any big deal to you but it would be
a horrible and useless lie to me.
>> >have you asked god to come to you?
>>
>> That's not an example.
>
>you demand proof from everyone else.
>demand this of god yourself.
>tho love will get your farther.
>
>> >have you prepared yourself for a visit from god?
>>
>> That's not an example.
>
>when you personally ask for proof from god, proof you can get.
>when you ask for proof and then don't make the effort to be prepared
>for the answer, you may or may not.
>you may not see the answer even. just as one might want to take the
>course before the final exam.
>
>> >have you tried to love so hard it hurts?
>>
>> That's not an example.
>
>it is a gesture towards a solution.
>
>> >have you?
>>
>> That's not an example.
>>
>> >you want it the easy way?
>
>really, you sound so lazy.
I've pointed out over a dozen examples of your
dishonesty and they keep on rolling in, so I am
getting tired of pointing them out now that you
menion it. You'd probably get tired of it too, if
instead I were the one lying to you.
>someone is suggesting a way to find out for yourself
>and you refuse saying you want it given to you on a platter?
>Like these experience with love would change you
>so much you don't wanna even try to love till it hurts?
I don't want to be dishonest. You don't mind...in
fact you appear to enjoy it.
>> This is another example of your dishonesty.
>
>nope. Merlin has made no claim here that your trying will not prove
>something to you.
>
>> To be realistic
>
>love, it all boils down to love.
>and what our love attracts to us.
>
>> and straight with it we really should number each example as
>> the individual example that it is which would take us to #14!
>
>merlin does not quote scriptures on purpose.
>they tend to have too many confusing or political translations.
>
>> Instead though we can lump them together in one group
>> keeping you "down to" #10.
>
>we are talking about love not lumping.
We're talking about your dishonesties, as you are dishonestly
trying to pretend we are not.
>> Even if we are overly generous
>> to you it's still quite a lot to have 10 legitimate complaints,
>
>you have not listed one real complaint against merlin with any
>examples.
That's another example of dishonesty, since I've listed over
10 with examples that you OBVIOUSLY deliberately snipped,
and now are dishonestly lying about.
>your are generalizing, and treating Merlin as you have been treated in
>the past.
>merlin is not treating you as you have been treated in the past.
Yes you are. People always use dishonesty against me,
because I point out facts and the only thing people have
to try opposing facts with is some form(s) of dishonesty.
>merlin is showing a curious mind that found something out through
>love.
>can you image your love as a portal?
>
>> mostly about dishonesty,
>
>you are weak and only talk about dishonesty?
I point it out. I've pointed out many examples of yours,
for examples.
>we got that part.
>
>> in one post from you as an individual.
>> You really are much too comfortable with dishonesty, imo.
>
>Love will change all that for you.
No.
>Love will change your view point.
No. Even if I did love you, I still would feel the same
way about all your dishonesties.
>Love will help you learn more.
>as we do learn about those things we are most attracted to.
>
>> >merlin can't help you.
>> >a relationship with god is personal and private.
>>
>> That's what I've been pointing out to some of the strong
>> atheists who are ashamed of their own faith, when they
>> absurdly and childlikely beg for proof of God's existence.
>
>Oh so you weren't looking for proof there is a god?
I've tried in the past, when I thought about it all in a more
absurd and childlike way. Even then though I think I was
already aware that any proof of God's existence would be
from an encounter he provides between himself or one of
his representatives, and the person in question. Hopefully
I've never been so clueless as to think God might prove
his existence somehow through somebody's post to a ng.
>this is all ruse for you?
If God doesn't exist then it's just bullshit. If he does,
then it's significant to think about and discuss it.
>> >not a group thang tho a group can help each of us understand what is
>> >happening to us.
>>
>> Maybe once in a while.
>
>that is all it takes.
>
>> You're the one stirring up the shit about it for some
>> unexplained reason.
>
>your putdowns of yourself, do not sound humbling.
Again you're trying dishonestly to shift your own
behavior onto someone else. You really are an
extremely dishonest person.
>> >we all come short of the glory that is god.
>>
>> That may be the most honest thing I've known you
>> to post so far.
>
>you would fall for the 'short' joke.
LOL! The only honest thing you've said so far, and
you think of it as some kind of joke.
dh
I'm familiar with this:
Leviticus 20
1 The LORD said to Moses,
2 "Say to the Israelites: `Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who
gives[1] any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people
of the community are to stone him.
[...]
9 "`If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has
cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.
10 "`If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his
neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11 "`If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both
the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their
own heads.
12 "`If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to
death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their
own heads.
13 "`If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have
done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be
on their own heads.
14 "`If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and
they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 "`If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and
you must kill the animal.
16 "`If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both
the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on
their own heads.
Numbers 15
32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on
the Sabbath day.
33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and
the whole assembly,
34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done
to him.
35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly
must stone him outside the camp."
36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the
LORD commanded Moses.
>> >genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
>> >barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
>> >certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
>> >untrustworthy monster.
>>
>> If God does exist he communicated to those people who believed
>> as they believed back then. He had to relate to them in ways that
>> went along with what they believed to the extent that it wouldn't
>> change things too much, if he didn't want to change things too much.
>Such as OT to NT?
What if he had explained that the Earth was not the center of
the universe, and round, and the way it orbits the sun? What if
he had shown them some things about how to make steel and
aluminum? What if he showed them how to make solar panels
that were efficient at changing solar energy into electrical energy,
so they could work the steel and aluminum plants without the
need of fossil fules?
>Attempts to hide and correct past stories and their mistake is
>apparent.
Like what?
>But you choose to ignore, or you are not yourself.
>Your brain has been washed thoroughly before....I don;t want to be too
>hard on you.
Don't worry about that. How do you think my brain was
washed, and what do you think it has to do with my beliefs
today?
>> >They are not even good fiction.
>>
>> If God had provided them with information they had previously
>> not had then it would probably have been more evidence of his
>> existence in later years than he wanted to make available. If he
>> had told those people things like the Earth is round and not the
>> center of the Universe, then it may very well have been stronger
>> evidence of his existence than would allow people to think freely
>> about the possibility. If he does exist, it seem obvios that he wants
>> us to have that freedom, most likely because if we didn't have it
>> we would be like his slaves.
>Nature gives us the ability to be free, to be ourselves, to choose...
Looking at a troop of apes shows you how much freedom nature
gives us. Well...looking at an individual ape who is no longer a part
of a troop shows you how much, and that probably isn't a whole
lot since apes on their own probably don't make it very long in most
cases. How long do you think you would survive naked and alone
in the wilds of Africa today? It would have been many many times
worse back in the the days when "nature" "gave us" any "freedom".
>There is no god to come around in time of stress, such as recent quake
>in Italy.
You have no idea whether there was or not. In contrast to your
claim, I imagine there were a number of people who did thank God
for helping them and their loved ones to survive.
>Your RCC could one day be in ruins. Your god is not coming
>to any aid, it is impotent, it is not here, it is never been here, it
>is nothing, it does not exist.
That's one possibility, and the only one you can consider. I consider
that one plus a number of others you can not, one of the main ones
being that you may be wrong.
>> >There are 66 or more 'claimed original authors'. There are NO original
>> >copies of the Bibles in existence. They are all ALTERED hand copies of
>> >copies of copies etc. by hundreds of scribes over a period of thousands of
>> >years. There is no accurate objective way to determine their authenticity or
>> >historical accuracy.
>>
>> >The Bibles quite obviously contain mostly myths, fables, legends.
>> >contradictions and totally impossible tales. NONE of the Bibles were written
>> >during Jesus' 'CLAIMED LIFE TIME'. Time and distance was required to allow
>> >the creation of fictional stories and the embellishment of history.
>>
>> The last I heard the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with later versions.
>> If you know of areas where they disagree then please share the
>> info and links.
>Scrolls were human records of stories from ancient times.
Thanks for confirming that what I hear last is still true today.
>Our Harry Potter story book will be scrolls or books in 5,000 years,
>but will be fairy tales the same as your bible now.
>>
>> >There is also the matter of the Biblical canon itself. After all, ancient
>> >Israel and the early church knew of many more religious books than the ones
>> >that now constitute the Bible. For example, there were 50 gospels in
>> >circulation at the time the New Testaments were chosen by church leaders,
>> >yet only four
>> >made it into the New Testament. Who decided which of the books would
>> >become part of the Christian scriptures, and again, "Why?" Who decided,
>> >"This book belongs... this book doesn't..."? What were their reasons?
>> >What were their motives? How do we know if ANY of them were authentic?
>>
>> If God doesn't exist then of course none could be. If he does
>> exist and he cares what's in his canonical books, then it makes
>> sense to believe he was able to get them to turn out the way
>> he wants them whether you can ever appreciate it or not.
>Human effort is for all to see, to use, to benefit.
>What has there been anything even remotely being god's effort?
>The Katrina killed a lot of Christians, but your god is impotent.
>We said he never existed, and this is a fact.
You put your faith in that guess being correct, and then if you're
like most supposedly strong atheists you amusingly wish you could
deny your own faith.
>> >In addition there is evidence that the Bibles were altered by church leaders
>> >to support their personal motives and ambitions..
>>
>> Like what evidence?
>The ambition and motive to control, to rule, to govern...like the
>promises of Obama or McCain.
That's no evidence at all, now that you mention it. None!
You heard that it is true, and you want to believe it, so you
do even though you have not the slightest bit of evidence
to support the claim. And even if the claim were true it still
wouldn't mean anything if God does exist, so there's no
value to it whether it's true or not.
>> . . .
>>
>> >Figures like David and Solomon are considered "no more
>> >historical than King Arthur."
>>
>> Then it's amazing that there are pictures of the ruins of
>> Solomon's temple online, and equally amazing that people
>> are digging through those ruins still today.
>Temples were the product of past human.
Maybe that's where you got confused on that one:
Solomon was a human.
>Just like the mega-churches that will be ruins in the next century.
Do you think there will be supposedly strong atheists in
denial about all sorts of things then too, like denial of their
own faith and denial of the humans who built churches in
previous centuries?
>But are they being the house of god?
That depends on whether God exists or not now doesn't
it? Yes, it certainly does. So it's a question that you can't
appreciate the answer to, because you can't think realisitically
about the situation to begin with. You apparently are trapped
by childlike thoughts about Harry Potterish things, and other
supposedly strong atheists are trapped by childlike thoughts
about Santa, the Easter Bunny, Spagetti Monsters, invisible
pink unicorns, and other childlike "concepts". Being trapped
by such mental images or whatever they are to you, is probably
one of the main things preventing you people from thinking
about the possibility in a realistic way...or rather in realistic ways...
>There are being the houses of
>loons and bigotry which by right should be used to help the poor.
MANY!!!!!! churches help the poor. Name ONE atheistic
organization that does anything to help the poor. Try!:
dh
There ya' go...even some of the Muslims are aware of it.
>> Then again, if
>> you can't think about it realistically as no strong atheists
>> are able to do, then there's no telling what sort of weird
>> and clueless notions you might invent.
>
>B^D
>
>Atheist Bastets are likely to believe in anything;
>
>
># "it makes utterly no difference which goddesses or gods
># you believe in, as long as you have some...
># Me, I'd suggest Bastet." - Cary Kittrell
>#
># (has he misspelled 'Kitten'? ;-)
May be. Whether or no, it seems there's still no limit
to the unlikely and unrealistic things supposedly strong
atheists might come up with in their total inability to
think about the possibility of God's existence in any
realistic ways. In fact now that you mention it, how
could they think about it in any realistic way(s) at all?
I guess they just can't do it at all, period. And so far
all evidence does indicate that is the case.
dh
Of the numerous supposedly strong atheists I've encountered
in these ngs, only a VERY small percentage of them have not
been ashamed to admit their faith, and if I remember right one
of those who admitted it later tried to deny it. Since the degree
of faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines
how strong an atheist he or she is, why are there ANY who have
no faith but still want to try to pretend they are strong atheists?
They might just as well be trying to get people to believe they
are an aardvark, and one of the big questions would be what
it is in this current situation:
Why would they want anyone to believe that?
>>> # "DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH
>>> # TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
>>> #
>>> # NOSTRA AETATE
>>> #
>>> # PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
>>> # ...
>>> # 3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.
>>> # They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself;
>>> # merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5)
>>> # who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to
>>> # even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith
>>> # of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God."
>>>
>>> Of course the Christian Bible has proclaimed the Unity of God for
>>> millennia, long before there were Christians to argue over it;
>>>
>>> "Hear oh Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is One!"
> >
>> Well, your Obama say:" Hear oh America, the Lord thy president, the
>> Lord is one!"
>
>cite please. it's not that we don't trust you,
I don't.
>it's just that
>everything you say is either bullshit or lies.
I don't doubt that...
I believe several of the supposedly strong(?)
atheists on your list have denied their own faith,
thusly denying that they are strong atheists even
though they amusingly want to try to somehow
deny that too. I didn't keep notes on all of them
who wussed about their faith because that was
the VAAAAAAAAAST majority of them, showing
that the VAAAAAAAAAST majority of them are
wussy about their own beliefs. I did keep notes
on the very few who are not ashamed to admit
their faith...though I believe at least one of them
did try to wuss out at a later time...anyway, here
are the few who at one point were not ashamed:
"I am no more "ashamed" of my disbelief in gods than I would
be in my disbelief of any claim someone might make (without
evidence) that they own the Brooklyn Bridge." - panam...@hotmail.com
"Shit happens without the deliberate aid or influence of beings
superior to humans. Let me get one thing out of the way then,
I have FAITH in that" - haj...@zappo.com
"i happily admit to faith in the lack of a creator of the
type who judges people's morality and so on... i'll be
glad to." - marques de sade
"I have faith in my conviction that Atheism is right."
- Peter van Velzen
"I have confidence in the hypothesis that there was
no "creation" (cosmic origination) and no agent
responsible for it. you call that my faith, and i
am happy to affirm that this is my position, yes."
-- nocTifer
dh
No.
>Or your god is unreal?
Maybe. There are other possibilities that you're not able
to consider though, so you can't join in with those who can.
dh
>cact...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
>>> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
>>> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
>>> I say:
>>>
>>> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
>>> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
>>> I pray, amen.
>>
>> Why the cross-post?
>
>Religious are invited to post in alt.atheism (when the
>atheists are occasionally PRETENDING to be interested in
>rational discussion! ;-)
I haven't seen that happen yet. If they were able to consider
the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way, then they
wouldn't be strong atheists but would be something else...
># From: Haywire <paris...@gmail.com>
># Newsgroups: alt.atheism
># Subject: Re: You know what's really sad?
># Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 17:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
># Message-ID:
># <a760daf5-925d-4f44...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
>#
># > I wish a believer with even half of a brain
># > would come here so we could have real discussions.
>#
># Seconded.
># If there are any of you out there,
># come on in,
>#
># we don't bite!
>
>Lies!
What else do they have? They have faith in a guess
like everyone else, but they even lie about that most of
the time from my experience with them.
>Now we see why no believers are here, atheists are intolerant,
>unable to engage in rational discussion, they merely subject
>visitors to hateful abuse.
It makes sense though...They can't think about the
possibility of God's existence in any realistic ways, and
they WANT to believe God does not exist, so anything
that encourages them to think realistically about the
possibility of his existence causes cognitive dissonance.
That is very uncomfortable, and often causes people to
lash out at whoever is causing them to experience it.
dh
I do believe people will be forgiven for being gay like
the other things people are forgiven for, if they want to
be and ask for it. It may not even be their fault that they
are...some of them probably even wish they were not.
Of course as long as they deny God there could be no
hope of that even when they're not gay.
dh
>Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> I am a weak agnostic. That being the case I consider
>>> the possibility of God's existence, and if God does exist
>>> and went through what the Bible describes to us then
>>> I say:
>>>
>>> Thank You Lord so much for what you did, and please
>>> help me to be acceptable to you. Through Jesus Christ
>>> I pray, amen.
>>
>> I am a weak atheist
>
>All of them are, when it comes to rational discourse.
True, but when we think it through it makes sense that
people who can't think realistically about the possibility of
God's existence just can't do it, so really we can't expect
them to. If they ever learn to, then they are no longer
atheists but become something else...those who can
move on, and those who can't don't. So it does make
sense when we think it through...they just can't do it.
But! That doesn't mean it isn't good fun to tease their
little minds and encourage them to try. It's fun for those
who encourage them (sometimes), and it's damn sure
not going to hurt their stifled little brains to encourage
them to think beyond the one possibility they have
taken refuge in. It's good for them to have somebody
encourage them to think beyond their mental safety
zone once in a while, or at least to find out what it is
if they're afraid to think outside of it.
dh
>On Apr 21, 7:33 pm, merlina...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Apr 20, 4:23 pm, Christopher A. Lee
>>
>>
>>
>> > Not to mention that "God" doesn't mean the same to non-believers of
>> > any kind t hat it does to Christians.
>>
>> yes it does, everyone speaks the same religious language.
>> it is embeded into the culture. your rebellion is against
>> christianity
>> and has nothign to do with god.
>What religious language when atheist does not speak?
>>
>> and the god of the christians is same god of the athiests when
>> athiests refer to god that is.
>Well, give definition of your god then.
>>
>>
>>
>> > If only they had the intelligence to substitute something they don't
>> > believe like Odin
>>
>> same god differing name. all gods are names of the same god.
>You are only allowed to speak for yourself, no one else.
>So, when you speak of your god, your god cannot asummed to be allah.
If God exists then people refer to the same being regardless of
what they call him or what they think about him. Try to get that
much straight at least. The same is true of the Sun, the Moon,
and even the Earth. If you can learn to understand how it's true
for things like that, then maybe you can learn to understand how
it's true of God if he exists as well. If you can't, then it's just one
more thing you must remain clueless about.