Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why I Don’t Believe in Atheism
82 views
Skip to first unread message
jope
May 24, 2013, 12:30:11 PM5/24/13
to
By Joe McKeever
“In the beginning, God….” (Genesis 1:1)
"Nowhere does the Bible try to prove the existence of God. He is.
Period.
Deal with it, earthlings.
Humanistic evangelists and atheistic peddlers are sure that we
mindless theists have never considered the superior evidence for the
positions they hold. Surely, if we did, they think, we would renounce
the church and join them.
Once again, believers are lumped together by those who “just don’t
get it” as the terminally naive, the hopelessly hopeful, the
unthinking uneducated and the irrationally illiterate.
Most of the solid believers I know have considered atheism at one time
or other. I did, while in college. This is not to say I joined the
humanist society of Birmingham or majored in skepticism at Birmingham-
Southern. But I read some of the stuff, talked to a few of the people,
thought about the ramifications of it all, and made my choice to take
my stand with believers.
I’ve never regretted it.
Here’s why.
1) As a rule, atheists tend to be a pretty miserable lot, while the
best Christians I know are also the most put-together, positive, and
effective people in the room.
I heard someone say once, “The devil has no godly old people.” Indeed.
We could add that the Lord also seems to have all the best-mannered,
generous-hearted, goal-oriented achievers. If you look at the product
of atheism and Christianity, there is no contest.
2) Since faith is required for either position, choosing to believe
this amazing universe came together by chance and will go out the same
way requires far more faith than this Alabama farm boy can muster. As
has been said in the book by this title, “I don’t have faith enough to
be an atheist.”
3) While it’s true a large portion of Christians have probably not
investigated various apologetic aspects–evidence for the resurrection,
the historicity of Jesus, the integrity of Scriptures– a great many
have. I sat in the room with Dr. Carl F. H. Henry in the summer of
1978 as he said to some of us, “Christianity is the only world
religion that has come through the scientific revolution and emerged
intact.” Some of the others are fighting tooth and claw to keep
modern technology from taking a look at their authoritative writings.
4) I do like the old line of reasoning that goes: “If the atheist is
true and after death, we all disappear into nothingness, then as a
Christian I have lost nothing. But if Jesus Christ is true and after
death life just begins to get interesting, then the atheist is in a
lot of trouble.” What about that can they not see?
5) If we know people by their fruits, then philosophies should
identify themselves the same way. So, does anyone know any charitable
ministry ever started by the atheists? Show me one and I can show you
a hundred hospitals and colleges, children’s homes and crisis centers
begun by Christ-followers.
6) There are the miracles, such as the existence of Holy Scriptures
(the uniformity of them, the prophecies, the clarity, and a thousand
other aspects), the existence of the Man of Galilee (His birth, life,
death, and resurrection; His teachings and promises, etc), the
existence of the Church (so flawed, without its divine nature, surely
it would have vanished long ago), and the existence of honest inquiry
among believers (a sure sign, if you ask me, that God’s people are
into Truth and nothing else).
7) My testimony–and yours–on the power of Jesus Christ who changed our
lives. And, as C. S. Lewis pointed out, if a skeptic scoffs that my
life is so far inferior to what a true Christian should look like, I
do not argue with that, but reply that my life is still so far beyond
what it would have been without Christ.
The fact is we need God.
We need Him for the simple reason that, as the prophet said, “it is
not in man who walks to direct his own steps.”
I need God to make me more than I would ever be otherwise. I need
growth.
I need God to save me from my natural self-centeredness. I need love..
I need God to take care of friends and loved ones with real needs who
are outside my ability to help. I need prayer.
I need God to guide me in decisions since I do not know what tomorrow
holds and thus what to do with today’s opportunities. I need wisdom.
All by myself, I make a pretty small (and miserable) package.
Thank God, I am not alone here on this small planet. The living God
has singled this one out and has dwelled among us and made it possible
for us to live on a higher plane here and with Him in Heaven forever.
I need God to get me to Heaven.
And because I need God, He sent Jesus.
I could not be an atheist on my worst day. God has done far too much
for me to be so ungrateful."
http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/joe-mckeever/why-i-don-t-believe-in-atheism.html
Free Lunch
May 24, 2013, 1:23:51 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:30:11 -0700 (PDT), jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>By Joe McKeever
>
>
>�In the beginning, God�.� (Genesis 1:1)
>
>"Nowhere does the Bible try to prove the existence of God. He is.
>Period.
>
...
>I could not be an atheist on my worst day. God has done far too much
>for me to be so ungrateful."
>
>http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/joe-mckeever/why-i-don-t-believe-in-atheism.html
Mr. McKeever shows us that he is ignorant and has no understanding of
logic or evidence. No wonder jope reposted his nonsense.
in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>By Joe McKeever
>
>
>�In the beginning, God�.� (Genesis 1:1)
>
>"Nowhere does the Bible try to prove the existence of God. He is.
>Period.
>
>I could not be an atheist on my worst day. God has done far too much
>for me to be so ungrateful."
>
>http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/joe-mckeever/why-i-don-t-believe-in-atheism.html
logic or evidence. No wonder jope reposted his nonsense.
Jope
May 24, 2013, 2:20:45 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 1:23 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:30:11 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:30:11 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote
> in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
>
> >By Joe McKeever
>
> > In the beginning, God . (Genesis 1:1)
>
> >"Nowhere does the Bible try to prove the existence of God. He is.
> >Period.
>
> ...
>
> >I could not be an atheist on my worst day. God has done far too much
> >for me to be so ungrateful."
>
> >http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/joe-mckeever/why-i-don-t-believe-in-at...
>
>
>
> >By Joe McKeever
>
> > In the beginning, God . (Genesis 1:1)
>
> >"Nowhere does the Bible try to prove the existence of God. He is.
> >Period.
>
> ...
>
> >I could not be an atheist on my worst day. God has done far too much
> >for me to be so ungrateful."
>
>
> Mr. McKeever shows us that he is ignorant and has no understanding of
> logic or evidence. No wonder jope reposted his nonsense.
Replacing lack of understanding with smirk is rather useless.
> Mr. McKeever shows us that he is ignorant and has no understanding of
> logic or evidence. No wonder jope reposted his nonsense.
David Johnston
May 24, 2013, 2:43:41 PM5/24/13
to
I don't "believe" in Atheism either. I just am one.
bil...@microsoft.com
May 24, 2013, 4:19:14 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:30:11 -0700 (PDT), jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>By Joe McKeever
>
>
>�In the beginning, God�.� (Genesis 1:1)
>
>"Nowhere does the Bible try to prove the existence of God. He is.
>Period.
>
That may be but the bible was not even written to be a "holy" book.
The bible was just stories told and retold and copied plagerized
edited. There are stories written in the bible that were written Long
before the bible was put together. for example the story of noah ark.
That story has many many different versions and uses many different
names.
>Deal with it, earthlings.
no you deal with it asswipe
>
>Humanistic evangelists and atheistic peddlers are sure that we
>mindless theists have never considered the superior evidence for the
>positions they hold. Surely, if we did, they think, we would renounce
>the church and join them.
dude what do you think the "prophets" were? The 12 apostles?
They were evanglists
>
>Once again, believers are lumped together by those who �just don�t
>get it� as the terminally naive, the hopelessly hopeful, the
>unthinking uneducated and the irrationally illiterate.
Well said, I would fully agree with that
>
>Most of the solid believers I know have considered atheism at one time
>or other. I did, while in college. This is not to say I joined the
>humanist society of Birmingham or majored in skepticism at Birmingham-
>Southern. But I read some of the stuff, talked to a few of the people,
>thought about the ramifications of it all, and made my choice to take
>my stand with believers.
again this comes to mind
> those who �just don�t
>get it� as the terminally naive, the hopelessly hopeful, the
>unthinking uneducated and the irrationally illiterate. comes to mind
>
>I�ve never regretted it.
>
>Here�s why.
>
>1) As a rule, atheists tend to be a pretty miserable lot, while the
I am an atheist and I am disabled However I am not miserable. infact
I dont know of any atheists that are miserable.
the theists tell themselves that it has to be that way though to make
themselves feel better.
Tell me whom is miserable sir? me or could it be you that lives thier
entire life in fear?
>best Christians I know are also the most put-together, positive, and
>effective people in the room.
well lets see... Albert einstein and stephen hawking comes to mind .
>
>I heard someone say once, �The devil has no godly old people.� Indeed.
>We could add that the Lord also seems to have all the best-mannered,
>generous-hearted, goal-oriented achievers. If you look at the product
>of atheism and Christianity, there is no contest.
yeah tell that to the priests and assprted pastors that have molested
young boys. oh and BTW the only "sinners" are the theists
>
>2) Since faith is required for either position, choosing to believe
>this amazing universe came together by chance and will go out the same
>way requires far more faith than this Alabama farm boy can muster. As
>has been said in the book by this title, �I don�t have faith enough to
>be an atheist.�
again theists must tell themselves this that it must be that way to
make them selves feel justified for believing in santa claus the tooth
fairy elves and trolls
The universe in No way came by just chance. it came by following
specific laws of energy and matter
>
>3) While it�s true a large portion of Christians have probably not
>investigated various apologetic aspects�evidence for the resurrection,
>the historicity of Jesus, the integrity of Scriptures� a great many
>have. I sat in the room with Dr. Carl F. H. Henry in the summer of
>1978 as he said to some of us, �Christianity is the only world
>religion that has come through the scientific revolution and emerged
>intact.� Some of the others are fighting tooth and claw to keep
>modern technology from taking a look at their authoritative writings.
>
The only way christianity has come through is by denying science even
though without the special theroy of relativity you would not be
reading this or typing up your propaganda and other BS you type to
make yourself sleep better at night. The reason theists fight tooth
and claw as you say INCLUDING christians is because they think it will
score them brownie points with thier god. Again that fear word comes
to mind. and to prove to you that christians do fight tooth and nail
look at this useless crap you are typing posting here. It is because
you want the brownie points because you are getting older and tou are
starting to fear what will happen. so tell me again who is miserable?
you post all your rants but the thing is you are lying to yourself and
everyopne else as you do it
>4) I do like the old line of reasoning that goes: �If the atheist is
>true and after death, we all disappear into nothingness, then as a
>Christian I have lost nothing. But if Jesus Christ is true and after
>death life just begins to get interesting, then the atheist is in a
>lot of trouble.� What about that can they not see?
and if you think jesus christ is some type of holy deity then you have
already broken the first of your commandments.
>
>5) If we know people by their fruits, then philosophies should
>identify themselves the same way. So, does anyone know any charitable
>ministry ever started by the atheists? Show me one and I can show you
>a hundred hospitals and colleges, children�s homes and crisis centers
>begun by Christ-followers.
Pointless dribble because you are guessing you are jsut saying crap to
again make yourself feel better
>
>6) There are the miracles, such as the existence of Holy Scriptures
>(the uniformity of them, the prophecies, the clarity, and a thousand
>other aspects), the existence of the Man of Galilee (His birth, life,
>death, and resurrection; His teachings and promises, etc), the
>existence of the Church (so flawed, without its divine nature, surely
>it would have vanished long ago), and the existence of honest inquiry
>among believers (a sure sign, if you ask me, that God�s people are
>into Truth and nothing else).
every biit of it comes from a fairy tale except the church. which
chances are was created to turn a profit and retain power over thier
people
>
>7) My testimony�and yours�on the power of Jesus Christ who changed our
>lives. And, as C. S. Lewis pointed out, if a skeptic scoffs that my
>life is so far inferior to what a true Christian should look like, I
>do not argue with that, but reply that my life is still so far beyond
>what it would have been without Christ.
>
>The fact is we need God.
no you need one because you fear dying
>
now the authors of these fairy tales are devine eh?
>I need God to make me more than I would ever be otherwise. I need
>growth.
dude growth comes from education from learning from science and
discoveries
>
>I need God to save me from my natural self-centeredness. I need love..
as I said only theists are sinners
btw I have never needed any god to feel love or to gove love
>
>I need God to take care of friends and loved ones with real needs who
>are outside my ability to help. I need prayer.
>
>I need God to guide me in decisions since I do not know what tomorrow
>holds and thus what to do with today�s opportunities. I need wisdom.
>
>All by myself, I make a pretty small (and miserable) package.
>
>Thank God, I am not alone here on this small planet. The living God
>has singled this one out and has dwelled among us and made it possible
>for us to live on a higher plane here and with Him in Heaven forever.
>
>I need God to get me to Heaven.
That sums up you entire belief. you dont believe in a god. you are
just so scare of dying that you feel you need to rant this crap so you
can score your ticket to heaven. ya see because if you did believe and
you faith was strong and eternal then you would not even need to type
one word daying so.
sound famaliar?
there is NO subheading there that says
<oh yeah uhh also jesus and the holy spirit and any other various
prophets or second or third comings and whatever they decide to be
named>
what he actually wanted which was <give me your damn money>
wrote:
>
>By Joe McKeever
>
>
>�In the beginning, God�.� (Genesis 1:1)
>
>"Nowhere does the Bible try to prove the existence of God. He is.
>Period.
>
The bible was just stories told and retold and copied plagerized
edited. There are stories written in the bible that were written Long
before the bible was put together. for example the story of noah ark.
That story has many many different versions and uses many different
names.
>Deal with it, earthlings.
no you deal with it asswipe
>
>Humanistic evangelists and atheistic peddlers are sure that we
>mindless theists have never considered the superior evidence for the
>positions they hold. Surely, if we did, they think, we would renounce
>the church and join them.
They were evanglists
>
>Once again, believers are lumped together by those who �just don�t
>get it� as the terminally naive, the hopelessly hopeful, the
>unthinking uneducated and the irrationally illiterate.
>
>Most of the solid believers I know have considered atheism at one time
>or other. I did, while in college. This is not to say I joined the
>humanist society of Birmingham or majored in skepticism at Birmingham-
>Southern. But I read some of the stuff, talked to a few of the people,
>thought about the ramifications of it all, and made my choice to take
>my stand with believers.
> those who �just don�t
>get it� as the terminally naive, the hopelessly hopeful, the
>
>I�ve never regretted it.
>
>Here�s why.
>
>1) As a rule, atheists tend to be a pretty miserable lot, while the
I dont know of any atheists that are miserable.
the theists tell themselves that it has to be that way though to make
themselves feel better.
Tell me whom is miserable sir? me or could it be you that lives thier
entire life in fear?
>best Christians I know are also the most put-together, positive, and
>effective people in the room.
>
>I heard someone say once, �The devil has no godly old people.� Indeed.
>We could add that the Lord also seems to have all the best-mannered,
>generous-hearted, goal-oriented achievers. If you look at the product
>of atheism and Christianity, there is no contest.
young boys. oh and BTW the only "sinners" are the theists
>
>2) Since faith is required for either position, choosing to believe
>this amazing universe came together by chance and will go out the same
>way requires far more faith than this Alabama farm boy can muster. As
>has been said in the book by this title, �I don�t have faith enough to
again theists must tell themselves this that it must be that way to
make them selves feel justified for believing in santa claus the tooth
fairy elves and trolls
The universe in No way came by just chance. it came by following
specific laws of energy and matter
>
>3) While it�s true a large portion of Christians have probably not
>investigated various apologetic aspects�evidence for the resurrection,
>the historicity of Jesus, the integrity of Scriptures� a great many
>have. I sat in the room with Dr. Carl F. H. Henry in the summer of
>1978 as he said to some of us, �Christianity is the only world
>religion that has come through the scientific revolution and emerged
>intact.� Some of the others are fighting tooth and claw to keep
>modern technology from taking a look at their authoritative writings.
>
though without the special theroy of relativity you would not be
reading this or typing up your propaganda and other BS you type to
make yourself sleep better at night. The reason theists fight tooth
and claw as you say INCLUDING christians is because they think it will
score them brownie points with thier god. Again that fear word comes
to mind. and to prove to you that christians do fight tooth and nail
look at this useless crap you are typing posting here. It is because
you want the brownie points because you are getting older and tou are
starting to fear what will happen. so tell me again who is miserable?
you post all your rants but the thing is you are lying to yourself and
everyopne else as you do it
>4) I do like the old line of reasoning that goes: �If the atheist is
>true and after death, we all disappear into nothingness, then as a
>Christian I have lost nothing. But if Jesus Christ is true and after
>death life just begins to get interesting, then the atheist is in a
>lot of trouble.� What about that can they not see?
already broken the first of your commandments.
>
>5) If we know people by their fruits, then philosophies should
>identify themselves the same way. So, does anyone know any charitable
>ministry ever started by the atheists? Show me one and I can show you
>a hundred hospitals and colleges, children�s homes and crisis centers
>begun by Christ-followers.
again make yourself feel better
>
>6) There are the miracles, such as the existence of Holy Scriptures
>(the uniformity of them, the prophecies, the clarity, and a thousand
>other aspects), the existence of the Man of Galilee (His birth, life,
>death, and resurrection; His teachings and promises, etc), the
>existence of the Church (so flawed, without its divine nature, surely
>it would have vanished long ago), and the existence of honest inquiry
>among believers (a sure sign, if you ask me, that God�s people are
>into Truth and nothing else).
chances are was created to turn a profit and retain power over thier
people
>
>7) My testimony�and yours�on the power of Jesus Christ who changed our
>lives. And, as C. S. Lewis pointed out, if a skeptic scoffs that my
>life is so far inferior to what a true Christian should look like, I
>do not argue with that, but reply that my life is still so far beyond
>what it would have been without Christ.
>
>The fact is we need God.
>
>We need Him for the simple reason that, as the prophet said, �it is
>not in man who walks to direct his own steps.�
>We need Him for the simple reason that, as the prophet said, �it is
>
now the authors of these fairy tales are devine eh?
>I need God to make me more than I would ever be otherwise. I need
>growth.
discoveries
>
>I need God to save me from my natural self-centeredness. I need love..
btw I have never needed any god to feel love or to gove love
>
>I need God to take care of friends and loved ones with real needs who
>are outside my ability to help. I need prayer.
>
>I need God to guide me in decisions since I do not know what tomorrow
>holds and thus what to do with today�s opportunities. I need wisdom.
>
>All by myself, I make a pretty small (and miserable) package.
>
>Thank God, I am not alone here on this small planet. The living God
>has singled this one out and has dwelled among us and made it possible
>for us to live on a higher plane here and with Him in Heaven forever.
>
>I need God to get me to Heaven.
just so scare of dying that you feel you need to rant this crap so you
can score your ticket to heaven. ya see because if you did believe and
you faith was strong and eternal then you would not even need to type
one word daying so.
>
>And because I need God, He sent Jesus.
I am the lord your god you shall have no other gods besides me..
>And because I need God, He sent Jesus.
sound famaliar?
there is NO subheading there that says
<oh yeah uhh also jesus and the holy spirit and any other various
prophets or second or third comings and whatever they decide to be
named>
>
>I could not be an atheist on my worst day. God has done far too much
>for me to be so ungrateful."
>
>http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/joe-mckeever/why-i-don-t-believe-in-atheism.html
and there it is folks. The spam line. he said and did everything but
>I could not be an atheist on my worst day. God has done far too much
>for me to be so ungrateful."
>
>http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/joe-mckeever/why-i-don-t-believe-in-atheism.html
what he actually wanted which was <give me your damn money>
Buncy
May 24, 2013, 5:25:48 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 2:43 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> I don't "believe" in Atheism either. I just am one.
I don't believe in atheism. I am just an agnostic who is unconvinced
> I don't "believe" in Atheism either. I just am one.
that a supreme being exists who intervenes in the affairs of humans.
So I guess that makes me an atheist because neither do I see that the
universe was "created" by a supreme being.
Jope
May 24, 2013, 5:52:29 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 4:19 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:30:11 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
> >http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/joe-mckeever/why-i-don-t-believe-in-at...
attempted to come up with different theories in order to discredit the
bible.Many of those theories have already faded into oblivion.Some
however are still being held on to, by atheists in particular, as a
pretext to justify their rejection of God.
None of those theories can be substantiated.
The Torah,(The name of the first five books of the bible) was
written some 3500 years ago,making the bible the oldest book in the
world.
>I am an atheist and I am disabled However I am not miserable
You are facing the great unknown without any hope whatsoever. Have you
had your questions answered?Or ,Don't you have any?You are not
miserable because you are not thinking.If you could look ahead,you
would be weeping every single day of your life.
There is an expression for that, it is called: Going to hell in a
handbasket.
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:30:11 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>
> and there it is folks. The spam line. he said and did everything but
> what he actually wanted which was <give me your damn money>
> and there it is folks. The spam line. he said and did everything but
> what he actually wanted which was <give me your damn money>
>That may be but the bible was not even written to be a "holy" book.
>The bible was just stories told and retold and copied plagerized
>edited. There are stories written in the bible that were written Long
>before the bible was put together. for example the story of noah ark.
>That story has many many different versions and uses many different
names.
Actually ,that is quite wrong many people ,among the unbelievers, have
>The bible was just stories told and retold and copied plagerized
>edited. There are stories written in the bible that were written Long
>before the bible was put together. for example the story of noah ark.
>That story has many many different versions and uses many different
names.
attempted to come up with different theories in order to discredit the
bible.Many of those theories have already faded into oblivion.Some
however are still being held on to, by atheists in particular, as a
pretext to justify their rejection of God.
None of those theories can be substantiated.
The Torah,(The name of the first five books of the bible) was
written some 3500 years ago,making the bible the oldest book in the
world.
>I am an atheist and I am disabled However I am not miserable
had your questions answered?Or ,Don't you have any?You are not
miserable because you are not thinking.If you could look ahead,you
would be weeping every single day of your life.
There is an expression for that, it is called: Going to hell in a
handbasket.
Free Lunch
May 24, 2013, 6:17:52 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:52:29 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:
...
>>That may be but the bible was not even written to be a "holy" book.
>>The bible was just stories told and retold and copied plagerized
>>edited. There are stories written in the bible that were written Long
>>before the bible was put together. for example the story of noah ark.
>>That story has many many different versions and uses many different names.
>
>Actually ,that is quite wrong many people ,among the unbelievers, have
>attempted to come up with different theories in order to discredit the
>bible.Many of those theories have already faded into oblivion.Some
>however are still being held on to, by atheists in particular, as a
>pretext to justify their rejection of God.
Could you specify some of these and explain why they failed. Tell us who
brought them up initially, too.
>None of those theories can be substantiated.
>The Torah,(The name of the first five books of the bible) was
>written some 3500 years ago,making the bible the oldest book in the
>world.
So it is claimed by some believers. Could you direct me to evidence that
it really was written that long ago?
>>I am an atheist and I am disabled However I am not miserable
>You are facing the great unknown without any hope whatsoever. Have you
>had your questions answered?Or ,Don't you have any?You are not
>miserable because you are not thinking.If you could look ahead,you
>would be weeping every single day of your life.
>There is an expression for that, it is called: Going to hell in a
>handbasket.
Could you offer any evidence to back up your claims?
in alt.talk.creationism:
...
>>That may be but the bible was not even written to be a "holy" book.
>>The bible was just stories told and retold and copied plagerized
>>edited. There are stories written in the bible that were written Long
>>before the bible was put together. for example the story of noah ark.
>>That story has many many different versions and uses many different names.
>
>Actually ,that is quite wrong many people ,among the unbelievers, have
>attempted to come up with different theories in order to discredit the
>bible.Many of those theories have already faded into oblivion.Some
>however are still being held on to, by atheists in particular, as a
>pretext to justify their rejection of God.
brought them up initially, too.
>None of those theories can be substantiated.
>The Torah,(The name of the first five books of the bible) was
>written some 3500 years ago,making the bible the oldest book in the
>world.
it really was written that long ago?
>>I am an atheist and I am disabled However I am not miserable
>You are facing the great unknown without any hope whatsoever. Have you
>had your questions answered?Or ,Don't you have any?You are not
>miserable because you are not thinking.If you could look ahead,you
>would be weeping every single day of your life.
>There is an expression for that, it is called: Going to hell in a
>handbasket.
Jope
May 24, 2013, 7:19:05 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 6:17 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:52:29 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote
"All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man
of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work . (2 Timothy
3:16,17)
The word "inspired" (theopneustos) in the original Greek language
literally means "God-breathed". When the Bible claims to be inspired,
we understand therefore, that it came from the mouth of God. It is God-
breathed, inspired.
But a skeptic will say, "Everyone knows the Bible was written by men!
The book of 1 Corinthians, for example, was written by a man named
Paul. After all, the very first verse bears his name as the author."
In reply to this we answer: "Yes, 1 Corinthians was written by Paul.
Notice however, what Paul said in chapter 14, verse 37: "the things I
write to you are the Lord's commandment." Paul knew the source of his
writings and understood that he was like a pen in the hand of Almighty
God. We must not view the Bible as the word of Paul, Peter, or
Jeremiah, but rather, as the message God revealed through these men
just as it is written in Jeremiah 1:9,
Then the Lord stretched out his hand and touched my mouth, and the
Lord said to me, 'behold, I have put my words in your mouth'.
The Bible writers were not like news reporters giving their personal
interpretation of events they eye-witnessed, but were divinely guided
as 2 Peter 1:20-21 says,
Above all, you must understand that no prophesy of scripture came
about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its
origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried
along by the Holy Spirit.
God and man worked together in writing the scriptures. However, in
this work, God is the author who dictated the message, and man is the
writing instrument. Men were guided or inspired to write the exact
message God wanted recorded in the Bible. Now that we have a
fundamental understanding of inspiration and the origin of the Bible,
let us look at some evidence of inspiration.
"We constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of
God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it
really is, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13)."
> Could you offer any evidence to back up your claims?
We have the testimonies of trustworthy eyewitnesses:
" That which was from the beginning, which we have HEARD, which we
have SEEN WITH OUR EYES, which we have LOOKED AT and our HANDS HAVE
TOUCHED—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life
appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you
the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.
We proclaim to you what we have SEEN and HEARD, so that you also may
have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and
with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete."
1 John 1v1-4
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:52:29 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote
reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man
of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work . (2 Timothy
3:16,17)
The word "inspired" (theopneustos) in the original Greek language
literally means "God-breathed". When the Bible claims to be inspired,
we understand therefore, that it came from the mouth of God. It is God-
breathed, inspired.
But a skeptic will say, "Everyone knows the Bible was written by men!
The book of 1 Corinthians, for example, was written by a man named
Paul. After all, the very first verse bears his name as the author."
In reply to this we answer: "Yes, 1 Corinthians was written by Paul.
Notice however, what Paul said in chapter 14, verse 37: "the things I
write to you are the Lord's commandment." Paul knew the source of his
writings and understood that he was like a pen in the hand of Almighty
God. We must not view the Bible as the word of Paul, Peter, or
Jeremiah, but rather, as the message God revealed through these men
just as it is written in Jeremiah 1:9,
Then the Lord stretched out his hand and touched my mouth, and the
Lord said to me, 'behold, I have put my words in your mouth'.
The Bible writers were not like news reporters giving their personal
interpretation of events they eye-witnessed, but were divinely guided
as 2 Peter 1:20-21 says,
Above all, you must understand that no prophesy of scripture came
about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its
origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried
along by the Holy Spirit.
God and man worked together in writing the scriptures. However, in
this work, God is the author who dictated the message, and man is the
writing instrument. Men were guided or inspired to write the exact
message God wanted recorded in the Bible. Now that we have a
fundamental understanding of inspiration and the origin of the Bible,
let us look at some evidence of inspiration.
"We constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of
God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it
really is, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13)."
> Could you offer any evidence to back up your claims?
" That which was from the beginning, which we have HEARD, which we
have SEEN WITH OUR EYES, which we have LOOKED AT and our HANDS HAVE
TOUCHED—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life
appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you
the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.
We proclaim to you what we have SEEN and HEARD, so that you also may
have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and
with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete."
1 John 1v1-4
August Rode
May 24, 2013, 7:56:39 PM5/24/13
to
On Friday, May 24, 2013 5:52:29 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On May 24, 4:19 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
<snip>
> On May 24, 4:19 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> >That may be but the bible was not even written to be a "holy" book.
> >The bible was just stories told and retold and copied plagerized
> >edited. There are stories written in the bible that were written Long
> >before the bible was put together. for example the story of noah ark.
> >That story has many many different versions and uses many different
> names.
>
> Actually ,that is quite wrong many people ,among the unbelievers, have
> attempted to come up with different theories in order to discredit the
> bible.Many of those theories have already faded into oblivion.Some
> however are still being held on to, by atheists in particular, as a
> pretext to justify their rejection of God.
> None of those theories can be substantiated.
>
> The Torah,(The name of the first five books of the bible) was
> written some 3500 years ago,making the bible the oldest book in the
> world.
My reading tells me that parts of the Torah are believed to have been written at various times, from 2500 to 2900 years ago. What do you know that the experts do not?
Deuteronomy is widely considered to have been written during the reign of King Josiah in the 7th century BCE.
> >I am an atheist and I am disabled However I am not miserable
>
> You are facing the great unknown without any hope whatsoever.
> Have you
> had your questions answered?Or ,Don't you have any?You are not
> miserable because you are not thinking.If you could look ahead,you
> would be weeping every single day of your life.
Terry Cross
May 24, 2013, 9:44:24 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 2:25 pm, Buncy <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 24, 2:43 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't "believe" in Atheism either. I just am one.
>
> I don't believe in atheism. I am just an agnostic who is unconvinced
> that a supreme being exists who intervenes in the affairs of humans.
That is ALL you believe? Come now.
> On May 24, 2:43 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't "believe" in Atheism either. I just am one.
>
> I don't believe in atheism. I am just an agnostic who is unconvinced
> that a supreme being exists who intervenes in the affairs of humans.
Try a little honestness. (Otis Redding)
> So I guess that makes me an atheist because neither do I see that the
> universe was "created" by a supreme being.
dues.
TCross
Jope
May 24, 2013, 11:34:18 PM5/24/13
to
Moses is the author of the Torah.He lived some 3500 years ago.
The bible has many detractors .And once in a while ,they try to come
with a new theory.One thing all those theories have in common:They
cannot be substantiated.
bil...@microsoft.com
May 25, 2013, 12:16:16 AM5/25/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:52:29 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Actually ,that is quite wrong many people ,among the unbelievers, have
>attempted to come up with different theories in order to discredit the
>bible.Many of those theories have already faded into oblivion.Some
>however are still being held on to, by atheists in particular, as a
>pretext to justify their rejection of God.
>None of those theories can be substantiated.
>The Torah,(The name of the first five books of the bible) was
>written some 3500 years ago,making the bible the oldest book in the
>world.
seriously dide is that all you have got? I mean seriously and no the
torah was not written then.
According to religious tradition, all of the teachings found in the
Torah, both written and oral, were given by God to Moses, some of them
at Mount Sinai and others at the Tabernacle, and all the teachings
were written down by Moses, which resulted in the Torah we have today.
According to a Midrash, the Torah was created prior to the creation of
the world, and was used as the blueprint for Creation.[3] The majority
of Biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of
the Babylonian exilic period (c. 600 BCE) and that it was completed by
the Persian period (c. 400 BCE).[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah
at least get your facts straight before tou decide to make up crap
that makes no sense whatsoever
toilet paper to fight in a gun battle.
I can honestly say Dude I seriously feel sorry for you. I mean you are
totally 100% oblivious the the world and its workings.
wrote:
>Actually ,that is quite wrong many people ,among the unbelievers, have
>attempted to come up with different theories in order to discredit the
>bible.Many of those theories have already faded into oblivion.Some
>however are still being held on to, by atheists in particular, as a
>pretext to justify their rejection of God.
>None of those theories can be substantiated.
>The Torah,(The name of the first five books of the bible) was
>written some 3500 years ago,making the bible the oldest book in the
>world.
torah was not written then.
According to religious tradition, all of the teachings found in the
Torah, both written and oral, were given by God to Moses, some of them
at Mount Sinai and others at the Tabernacle, and all the teachings
were written down by Moses, which resulted in the Torah we have today.
According to a Midrash, the Torah was created prior to the creation of
the world, and was used as the blueprint for Creation.[3] The majority
of Biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of
the Babylonian exilic period (c. 600 BCE) and that it was completed by
the Persian period (c. 400 BCE).[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah
at least get your facts straight before tou decide to make up crap
that makes no sense whatsoever
>
>>I am an atheist and I am disabled However I am not miserable
>You are facing the great unknown without any hope whatsoever. Have you
>had your questions answered?Or ,Don't you have any?You are not
>miserable because you are not thinking.If you could look ahead,you
>would be weeping every single day of your life.
>There is an expression for that, it is called: Going to hell in a
>handbasket.
seriously dude is this the best you have ? you are bringing a roll of
>>I am an atheist and I am disabled However I am not miserable
>You are facing the great unknown without any hope whatsoever. Have you
>had your questions answered?Or ,Don't you have any?You are not
>miserable because you are not thinking.If you could look ahead,you
>would be weeping every single day of your life.
>There is an expression for that, it is called: Going to hell in a
>handbasket.
toilet paper to fight in a gun battle.
I can honestly say Dude I seriously feel sorry for you. I mean you are
totally 100% oblivious the the world and its workings.
bil...@microsoft.com
May 25, 2013, 12:43:58 AM5/25/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:19:05 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Could you offer any evidence to back up your claims?
>
>"All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for
>reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man
>of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work . (2 Timothy
>3:16,17)
"yet he who quoteth from the bible shall be forever beseeched. For the
fairy tale will be the end of intelligence and reason"
Idiots Among Us, Ioidi Uoy
>
>The word "inspired" (theopneustos) in the original Greek language
>literally means "God-breathed". When the Bible claims to be inspired,
>we understand therefore, that it came from the mouth of God. It is God-
>breathed, inspired.
you may claim to be reasonablly intelligent but that will never in a
million years make it correct
>
>But a skeptic will say, "Everyone knows the Bible was written by men!
>The book of 1 Corinthians, for example, was written by a man named
>Paul. After all, the very first verse bears his name as the author."
>In reply to this we answer: "Yes, 1 Corinthians was written by Paul.
>Notice however, what Paul said in chapter 14, verse 37: "the things I
Notice however that when you quote fairy tales you look more and more
like a fairy
>write to you are the Lord's commandment." Paul knew the source of his
>writings and understood that he was like a pen in the hand of Almighty
>God. We must not view the Bible as the word of Paul, Peter, or
>Jeremiah, but rather, as the message God revealed through these men
>just as it is written in Jeremiah 1:9,
>
>Then the Lord stretched out his hand and touched my mouth, and the
>Lord said to me, 'behold, I have put my words in your mouth'.
>
>The Bible writers were not like news reporters giving their personal
>interpretation of events they eye-witnessed, but were divinely guided
>as 2 Peter 1:20-21 says,
actually they were alot like news reporters. The just made shit up as
they went. ask CNN
>
>Above all, you must understand that no prophesy of scripture came
>about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its
>origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried
>along by the Holy Spirit.
if you want to believe that santaq claus really exists that is your
choice. but Those of us that actually know differently will simply say
prove it and thus discrediting everything you just said. So I will now
say prove it and prove me wrong. and please do not quote any more of
your fairy tales.
you are a blathering idiot. That statement must be true because I said
god was working through me.
>
>> Could you offer any evidence to back up your claims?
>We have the testimonies of trustworthy eyewitnesses:
oh damn he did not jsut say eyewitnesses did he? ok provide names
dates ages birthdates maybe a SSN or any tangible evidence tthat these
"eyewitnesses" are alive ever have been alive or ever will be alive on
this earth
>
>" That which was from the beginning, which we have HEARD, which we
>have SEEN WITH OUR EYES, which we have LOOKED AT and our HANDS HAVE
>TOUCHED�this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life
Thats the thing. NOONE has ever seen nor touchhed or heard in any
respect of the meaning of those words
>appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you
>the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.
>We proclaim to you what we have SEEN and HEARD, so that you also may
>have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and
>with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete."
>1 John 1v1-4
according to your bible in genisis after your creation myth and man
and woman are brought to this earth you god says the he created man
and man is to go fourth into the world and god will not have any
infulence or effect on the life of these men.
and that one statement in tour bible totallyh voids everything you
just said will say and can hope to think of saying about what your god
has done for man. That one statement made by your god totallu
nullifies the bible old testament and new, jesus christ and every
religon, priest, preacher, prophet real or imaginary.
Ok big man go ahead and refute that one statement That is clearly
stated in your bible and I would become a beliver.
"there are idiots among us, and they all believe in a god"
Idiots Among Us, Toidi Uoy
wrote:
>>
>> Could you offer any evidence to back up your claims?
>
>"All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for
>reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man
>of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work . (2 Timothy
>3:16,17)
fairy tale will be the end of intelligence and reason"
Idiots Among Us, Ioidi Uoy
>
>The word "inspired" (theopneustos) in the original Greek language
>literally means "God-breathed". When the Bible claims to be inspired,
>we understand therefore, that it came from the mouth of God. It is God-
>breathed, inspired.
million years make it correct
>
>But a skeptic will say, "Everyone knows the Bible was written by men!
>The book of 1 Corinthians, for example, was written by a man named
>Paul. After all, the very first verse bears his name as the author."
>In reply to this we answer: "Yes, 1 Corinthians was written by Paul.
>Notice however, what Paul said in chapter 14, verse 37: "the things I
like a fairy
>write to you are the Lord's commandment." Paul knew the source of his
>writings and understood that he was like a pen in the hand of Almighty
>God. We must not view the Bible as the word of Paul, Peter, or
>Jeremiah, but rather, as the message God revealed through these men
>just as it is written in Jeremiah 1:9,
>
>Then the Lord stretched out his hand and touched my mouth, and the
>Lord said to me, 'behold, I have put my words in your mouth'.
>
>The Bible writers were not like news reporters giving their personal
>interpretation of events they eye-witnessed, but were divinely guided
>as 2 Peter 1:20-21 says,
they went. ask CNN
>
>Above all, you must understand that no prophesy of scripture came
>about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its
>origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried
>along by the Holy Spirit.
choice. but Those of us that actually know differently will simply say
prove it and thus discrediting everything you just said. So I will now
say prove it and prove me wrong. and please do not quote any more of
your fairy tales.
>
>God and man worked together in writing the scriptures. However, in
>this work, God is the author who dictated the message, and man is the
>writing instrument. Men were guided or inspired to write the exact
>message God wanted recorded in the Bible. Now that we have a
>fundamental understanding of inspiration and the origin of the Bible,
>let us look at some evidence of inspiration.
By that rationale I can say you god is working throough me when I say
>God and man worked together in writing the scriptures. However, in
>this work, God is the author who dictated the message, and man is the
>writing instrument. Men were guided or inspired to write the exact
>message God wanted recorded in the Bible. Now that we have a
>fundamental understanding of inspiration and the origin of the Bible,
>let us look at some evidence of inspiration.
you are a blathering idiot. That statement must be true because I said
god was working through me.
>
>> Could you offer any evidence to back up your claims?
>We have the testimonies of trustworthy eyewitnesses:
dates ages birthdates maybe a SSN or any tangible evidence tthat these
"eyewitnesses" are alive ever have been alive or ever will be alive on
this earth
>
>" That which was from the beginning, which we have HEARD, which we
>have SEEN WITH OUR EYES, which we have LOOKED AT and our HANDS HAVE
>TOUCHED�this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life
respect of the meaning of those words
>appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you
>the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.
>We proclaim to you what we have SEEN and HEARD, so that you also may
>have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and
>with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete."
>1 John 1v1-4
and woman are brought to this earth you god says the he created man
and man is to go fourth into the world and god will not have any
infulence or effect on the life of these men.
and that one statement in tour bible totallyh voids everything you
just said will say and can hope to think of saying about what your god
has done for man. That one statement made by your god totallu
nullifies the bible old testament and new, jesus christ and every
religon, priest, preacher, prophet real or imaginary.
Ok big man go ahead and refute that one statement That is clearly
stated in your bible and I would become a beliver.
"there are idiots among us, and they all believe in a god"
Idiots Among Us, Toidi Uoy
Jope
May 25, 2013, 12:46:07 AM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 12:16 am, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:52:29 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
You are trying to write something from wikipedia,without quite
understanding what you are writing about.
The five books of the bible also called the pentateuch are Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
The contain the law given to Moses as well Moses remembrances.To
declare that somebody wrote those things thousand of years later is to
essentially declaring the bible to be a pack of lies ,which is the
very purpose of those unbelievers.And that's how they get to decalre
that the bible is derived from oral traditions.Those are simply
opinions.They cannot be substantiated .That is a fact.
How come you feel sorry for me.According to your atheistic beliefs,you
are nothing but a bunch of soulles chemicals that came together by
accidents.
You have no hope whatosever beyond this life.And if hell exists,you
are 100% certain to go there.
According to the phylogenetic tree,your granddady is frog and your
daddy is monkey .And you are nothing but a great Ape.That is what you
believe.
You have every reason to weep every single day of your life.
As for me, I was created by God according to his image.Because of
sins, I must endure this life for a short while.But after this life is
over,I will be transformed into the glorious image of God and will
live forever in his loving presence .That is my living hope.And it is
solid .I am a living soul who is accountable to God.His presence is
with me all the time and feels me with joy.
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:52:29 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
understanding what you are writing about.
The five books of the bible also called the pentateuch are Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
The contain the law given to Moses as well Moses remembrances.To
declare that somebody wrote those things thousand of years later is to
essentially declaring the bible to be a pack of lies ,which is the
very purpose of those unbelievers.And that's how they get to decalre
that the bible is derived from oral traditions.Those are simply
opinions.They cannot be substantiated .That is a fact.
How come you feel sorry for me.According to your atheistic beliefs,you
are nothing but a bunch of soulles chemicals that came together by
accidents.
You have no hope whatosever beyond this life.And if hell exists,you
are 100% certain to go there.
According to the phylogenetic tree,your granddady is frog and your
daddy is monkey .And you are nothing but a great Ape.That is what you
believe.
You have every reason to weep every single day of your life.
As for me, I was created by God according to his image.Because of
sins, I must endure this life for a short while.But after this life is
over,I will be transformed into the glorious image of God and will
live forever in his loving presence .That is my living hope.And it is
solid .I am a living soul who is accountable to God.His presence is
with me all the time and feels me with joy.
Jope
May 25, 2013, 12:53:40 AM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 12:43 am, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:19:05 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
Who told you that?
There is no such thing in the Bible.I advise you to try to get hold of
a Bible and read the book of Genesis.
You would be surprised by what's in it.
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:19:05 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
There is no such thing in the Bible.I advise you to try to get hold of
a Bible and read the book of Genesis.
You would be surprised by what's in it.
bil...@microsoft.com
May 25, 2013, 3:51:54 AM5/25/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 21:53:40 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>according to your bible in genisis after your creation myth and man
>>and woman are brought to this earth you god says the he created man
>>and man is to go fourth into the world and god will not have any
>>infulence or effect on the life of these men.
>
>Who told you that?
>There is no such thing in the Bible.I advise you to try to get hold of
>a Bible and read the book of Genesis.
>You would be surprised by what's in it.
26 And God said, Let us make man, wearing our own image and likeness;
let us put him in command of the fishes in the sea, and all that flies
through the air, and the cattle, and the whole earth, and all the
creeping things that move on earth. 27 So God made man in his own
image, made him in the image of God. Man and woman both, he created
them. 28 And God pronounced his blessing on them, Increase and
multiply and fill the earth, and make it yours; take command of the
fishes in the sea, and all that flies through the air, and all the
living things that move on the earth.
in this passage god gave his word that it would allow men to rule over
EVERY LIVING CREATURE. If I am not mistaken humans are also living
creatures. When a supreme being says rule what does that mean?
It would mean that man has complete sovereignty over himself.in lamen
terms for the uneducated.. Do what the fuck you want I am out.
so you see once again I I have shown you just how much of an idiot you
are
Sovereignty is the quality of having independent authority over a
geographic area, such as a territory.[1] It can be found in a power to
rule and make laws
just incase you were wondering what thaqt word meant. which I am
positive you were.
wrote:
>>according to your bible in genisis after your creation myth and man
>>and woman are brought to this earth you god says the he created man
>>and man is to go fourth into the world and god will not have any
>>infulence or effect on the life of these men.
>
>Who told you that?
>There is no such thing in the Bible.I advise you to try to get hold of
>a Bible and read the book of Genesis.
>You would be surprised by what's in it.
let us put him in command of the fishes in the sea, and all that flies
through the air, and the cattle, and the whole earth, and all the
creeping things that move on earth. 27 So God made man in his own
image, made him in the image of God. Man and woman both, he created
them. 28 And God pronounced his blessing on them, Increase and
multiply and fill the earth, and make it yours; take command of the
fishes in the sea, and all that flies through the air, and all the
living things that move on the earth.
in this passage god gave his word that it would allow men to rule over
EVERY LIVING CREATURE. If I am not mistaken humans are also living
creatures. When a supreme being says rule what does that mean?
It would mean that man has complete sovereignty over himself.in lamen
terms for the uneducated.. Do what the fuck you want I am out.
so you see once again I I have shown you just how much of an idiot you
are
Sovereignty is the quality of having independent authority over a
geographic area, such as a territory.[1] It can be found in a power to
rule and make laws
just incase you were wondering what thaqt word meant. which I am
positive you were.
bil...@microsoft.com
May 25, 2013, 4:19:09 AM5/25/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 21:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On May 25, 12:16�am, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:52:29 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>You are trying to write something from wikipedia,without quite
>understanding what you are writing about.
Oh so so wrong. So so wrong.
you see because you have no education doesnt mean we all have no
education. it is in ones best interest to learn abou all aspects of
life. only thing is I learned what I learned from a neutral
prespective so I was able to see all angles and meanings of what I
learned. you did not. you learned one thing for a select group of
people who were already partial to what they were teaching. Which is
the entire story of religon.
>The five books of the bible also called the pentateuch are Genesis,
>Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
>The contain the law given to Moses as well Moses remembrances.To
>declare that somebody wrote those things thousand of years later is to
>essentially declaring the bible to be a pack of lies ,which is the
>very purpose of those unbelievers.And that's how they get to decalre
you are typing words but are saying exactly nothing. Nothing at all
>that the bible is derived from oral traditions.Those are simply
>opinions.They cannot be substantiated .That is a fact.
you believe in gods santa claus tooth fairy easter bunny devils demons
harry potter cinderella need I go on? NONE of which can be
substantiated
and since you dont know what that word means
sub�stan�ti�ate
[ s?b st�nshee �yt ]
prove or support something: to confirm that something is true or
valid
make something actual: to give something an actual physical
existence
>How come you feel sorry for me.According to your atheistic beliefs,you
>are nothing but a bunch of soulles chemicals that came together by
>accidents.
DAMN SHAME ISNT IT. SO ARE YOU!!
only thing is there was no accident about it. as I stated in another
post the universe and all that is within it follow rules that can not
ever be broken and these are the laws of physics. so in essence it is
these laws of physics that are yout god. I am sure you have even read
some of them. ya know ones like objects in morion will remain in
motion unless acted upon by an outside force.
That is what has goverened the creation of life and that sir HAS been
substantiated
>You have no hope whatosever beyond this life.And if hell exists,you
>are 100% certain to go there.
want to know what is funny. you claim all of your beliefs are reality
and yet you are not even sure if your beliefs exist. and I quote "IF
hell exists"
ya know if I believed in something and I knew it to be the truth I
would not say if
>According to the phylogenetic tree,your granddady is frog and your
>daddy is monkey .And you are nothing but a great Ape.That is what you
>believe.
your education shows its colors once again. Monkies and apes are 2
seperate lines
>You have every reason to weep every single day of your life.
>As for me, I was created by God according to his image.Because of
>sins, I must endure this life for a short while.But after this life is
>over,I will be transformed into the glorious image of God and will
>live forever in his loving presence .That is my living hope.And it is
>solid .I am a living soul who is accountable to God.His presence is
>with me all the time and feels me with joy.
dont you mean if?
you are SO SO out of your league you just dont even know. You are
guessing and making assumptions. But then again that is what theists
do because that is all they have and all they will ever have. it is
just a shame that you can not see that the revolution has already
happend. more and more and more people everyday are coming to the
realization that they have been lied to every day of thier life
wrote:
>On May 25, 12:16�am, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:52:29 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>You are trying to write something from wikipedia,without quite
>understanding what you are writing about.
you see because you have no education doesnt mean we all have no
education. it is in ones best interest to learn abou all aspects of
life. only thing is I learned what I learned from a neutral
prespective so I was able to see all angles and meanings of what I
learned. you did not. you learned one thing for a select group of
people who were already partial to what they were teaching. Which is
the entire story of religon.
>The five books of the bible also called the pentateuch are Genesis,
>Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
>The contain the law given to Moses as well Moses remembrances.To
>declare that somebody wrote those things thousand of years later is to
>essentially declaring the bible to be a pack of lies ,which is the
>very purpose of those unbelievers.And that's how they get to decalre
>that the bible is derived from oral traditions.Those are simply
>opinions.They cannot be substantiated .That is a fact.
harry potter cinderella need I go on? NONE of which can be
substantiated
and since you dont know what that word means
sub�stan�ti�ate
[ s?b st�nshee �yt ]
prove or support something: to confirm that something is true or
valid
make something actual: to give something an actual physical
existence
>How come you feel sorry for me.According to your atheistic beliefs,you
>are nothing but a bunch of soulles chemicals that came together by
>accidents.
only thing is there was no accident about it. as I stated in another
post the universe and all that is within it follow rules that can not
ever be broken and these are the laws of physics. so in essence it is
these laws of physics that are yout god. I am sure you have even read
some of them. ya know ones like objects in morion will remain in
motion unless acted upon by an outside force.
That is what has goverened the creation of life and that sir HAS been
substantiated
>You have no hope whatosever beyond this life.And if hell exists,you
>are 100% certain to go there.
and yet you are not even sure if your beliefs exist. and I quote "IF
hell exists"
ya know if I believed in something and I knew it to be the truth I
would not say if
>According to the phylogenetic tree,your granddady is frog and your
>daddy is monkey .And you are nothing but a great Ape.That is what you
>believe.
seperate lines
>You have every reason to weep every single day of your life.
>As for me, I was created by God according to his image.Because of
>sins, I must endure this life for a short while.But after this life is
>over,I will be transformed into the glorious image of God and will
>live forever in his loving presence .That is my living hope.And it is
>solid .I am a living soul who is accountable to God.His presence is
>with me all the time and feels me with joy.
you are SO SO out of your league you just dont even know. You are
guessing and making assumptions. But then again that is what theists
do because that is all they have and all they will ever have. it is
just a shame that you can not see that the revolution has already
happend. more and more and more people everyday are coming to the
realization that they have been lied to every day of thier life
August Rode
May 25, 2013, 7:12:11 AM5/25/13
to
> He lived some 3500 years ago.
> The bible has many detractors .
August Rode
May 25, 2013, 7:33:34 AM5/25/13
to
> To
> declare that somebody wrote those things thousand of years later is to
> essentially declaring the bible to be a pack of lies ,which is the
> very purpose of those unbelievers.
> And that's how they get to decalre
> that the bible is derived from oral traditions.Those are simply
> opinions.They cannot be substantiated .That is a fact.
> How come you feel sorry for me.According to your atheistic beliefs,you
> are nothing but a bunch of soulles chemicals that came together by
> accidents.
>
> You have no hope whatosever beyond this life.
> And if hell exists,you
> are 100% certain to go there.
> According to the phylogenetic tree,your granddady is frog and your
> daddy is monkey .And you are nothing but a great Ape.That is what you
> believe.
> You have every reason to weep every single day of your life.
> As for me, I was created by God according to his image.
> Because of
> sins, I must endure this life for a short while.
> But after this life is
> over,I will be transformed into the glorious image of God and will
Free Lunch
May 25, 2013, 9:22:17 AM5/25/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:19:05 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
So one writer claims. Where is his evidence?
>The word "inspired" (theopneustos) in the original Greek language
>literally means "God-breathed". When the Bible claims to be inspired,
>we understand therefore, that it came from the mouth of God. It is God-
>breathed, inspired.
But why should we believe the self-serving claims found in the Bible
when we find that many of the mundane claims are notably false.
>But a skeptic will say, "Everyone knows the Bible was written by men!
>The book of 1 Corinthians, for example, was written by a man named
>Paul. After all, the very first verse bears his name as the author."
>In reply to this we answer: "Yes, 1 Corinthians was written by Paul.
>Notice however, what Paul said in chapter 14, verse 37: "the things I
>write to you are the Lord's commandment." Paul knew the source of his
>writings and understood that he was like a pen in the hand of Almighty
>God. We must not view the Bible as the word of Paul, Peter, or
>Jeremiah, but rather, as the message God revealed through these men
>just as it is written in Jeremiah 1:9,
Why should we believe Paul when he claims to be telling us what God
wants?
>Then the Lord stretched out his hand and touched my mouth, and the
>Lord said to me, 'behold, I have put my words in your mouth'.
Why should we believe the writer of Jeremiah?
>The Bible writers were not like news reporters giving their personal
>interpretation of events they eye-witnessed, but were divinely guided
>as 2 Peter 1:20-21 says,
>
>Above all, you must understand that no prophesy of scripture came
>about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its
>origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried
>along by the Holy Spirit.
Why should we believe Peter?
>God and man worked together in writing the scriptures. However, in
>this work, God is the author who dictated the message, and man is the
>writing instrument. Men were guided or inspired to write the exact
>message God wanted recorded in the Bible. Now that we have a
>fundamental understanding of inspiration and the origin of the Bible,
>let us look at some evidence of inspiration.
If God controlled what was written, why was he so ignorant? Why did he
get so many things wrong about nature and history?
>"We constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of
>God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it
>really is, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13)."
Why did Paul teach things that were inconsistent with what the gospels
claim Jesus taught?
>> Could you offer any evidence to back up your claims?
>We have the testimonies of trustworthy eyewitnesses:
Sure, there are a few places in the Bible that are alleged to have been
written by eyewitnesses, but they are rare and unreliable. In court, we
don't allow someone to claim to be an eyewitness to something if no
other evidence exists to support that the event happened. Even when we
allow eyewitnesses, we realize that they are hopelessly unreliable.
>" That which was from the beginning, which we have HEARD, which we
>have SEEN WITH OUR EYES, which we have LOOKED AT and our HANDS HAVE
>TOUCHED�this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life
>appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you
>the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.
>We proclaim to you what we have SEEN and HEARD, so that you also may
>have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and
>with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete."
>1 John 1v1-4
There's no reason to believe what was written there.
The Bible is not evidence for its own accuracy, in fact, the Bible is
the best reason to reject the teachings found in the Bible. It is
consistently wrong on mundane subjects like history or biology. If it
cannot be trusted about history, how can anyone trust its claims about
gods.
>The word "inspired" (theopneustos) in the original Greek language
>literally means "God-breathed". When the Bible claims to be inspired,
>we understand therefore, that it came from the mouth of God. It is God-
>breathed, inspired.
when we find that many of the mundane claims are notably false.
>But a skeptic will say, "Everyone knows the Bible was written by men!
>The book of 1 Corinthians, for example, was written by a man named
>Paul. After all, the very first verse bears his name as the author."
>In reply to this we answer: "Yes, 1 Corinthians was written by Paul.
>Notice however, what Paul said in chapter 14, verse 37: "the things I
>write to you are the Lord's commandment." Paul knew the source of his
>writings and understood that he was like a pen in the hand of Almighty
>God. We must not view the Bible as the word of Paul, Peter, or
>Jeremiah, but rather, as the message God revealed through these men
>just as it is written in Jeremiah 1:9,
wants?
>Then the Lord stretched out his hand and touched my mouth, and the
>Lord said to me, 'behold, I have put my words in your mouth'.
>The Bible writers were not like news reporters giving their personal
>interpretation of events they eye-witnessed, but were divinely guided
>as 2 Peter 1:20-21 says,
>
>Above all, you must understand that no prophesy of scripture came
>about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its
>origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried
>along by the Holy Spirit.
>God and man worked together in writing the scriptures. However, in
>this work, God is the author who dictated the message, and man is the
>writing instrument. Men were guided or inspired to write the exact
>message God wanted recorded in the Bible. Now that we have a
>fundamental understanding of inspiration and the origin of the Bible,
>let us look at some evidence of inspiration.
get so many things wrong about nature and history?
>"We constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of
>God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it
>really is, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13)."
claim Jesus taught?
>> Could you offer any evidence to back up your claims?
>We have the testimonies of trustworthy eyewitnesses:
written by eyewitnesses, but they are rare and unreliable. In court, we
don't allow someone to claim to be an eyewitness to something if no
other evidence exists to support that the event happened. Even when we
allow eyewitnesses, we realize that they are hopelessly unreliable.
>" That which was from the beginning, which we have HEARD, which we
>have SEEN WITH OUR EYES, which we have LOOKED AT and our HANDS HAVE
>TOUCHED�this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life
>appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you
>the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.
>We proclaim to you what we have SEEN and HEARD, so that you also may
>have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and
>with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete."
>1 John 1v1-4
The Bible is not evidence for its own accuracy, in fact, the Bible is
the best reason to reject the teachings found in the Bible. It is
consistently wrong on mundane subjects like history or biology. If it
cannot be trusted about history, how can anyone trust its claims about
gods.
Free Lunch
May 25, 2013, 9:24:48 AM5/25/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:34:18 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:
Moses is a mythic name. The Hebrews never were slaves in Egypt and there
never was an Exodus. The stories in the Torah are fiction.
in alt.talk.creationism:
never was an Exodus. The stories in the Torah are fiction.
Andrew
May 25, 2013, 11:25:07 AM5/25/13
to
"August Rode"wrote in message news:7dd5b745-c58d-4d11...@googlegroups.com...
> The scriptures don't indicate who wrote the Torah. It is
> only religious tradition that suggests that he did.
Exodus 24:4 "And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD"
Deut 31:9 "And Moses wrote this law"
Luke 20:28 "Moses wrote unto us"
John 5:46,47 "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have
believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye
believe not his writings, how shall ye believe
my words?"
> The scriptures don't indicate who wrote the Torah. It is
> only religious tradition that suggests that he did.
Deut 31:9 "And Moses wrote this law"
Luke 20:28 "Moses wrote unto us"
John 5:46,47 "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have
believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye
believe not his writings, how shall ye believe
my words?"
bil...@microsoft.com
May 25, 2013, 11:56:51 AM5/25/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 21:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On May 25, 12:16�am, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:52:29 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>You are trying to write something from wikipedia,without quite
>understanding what you are writing about.
>The five books of the bible also called the pentateuch are Genesis,
>Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
The earliest written flood myth is found in the Mesopotamian Epic of
Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh texts. Many scholars believe that Noah
and the Biblical Flood story are derived from the Mesopotamian
version, predominantly because Biblical mythology that is today found
in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mandeanism shares overlapping
consistency with far older written ancient Mesopotamian story of The
Great Flood, and that the early Hebrews were known to have lived in
Mesopotamia.[10]
Gilgamesh�s historical reign is believed to have been approximately
2700 BCE,[11] shortly before the earliest known written stories. The
discovery of artifacts associated with Aga and Enmebaragesi of Kish,
two other kings named in the stories, has lent credibility to the
historical existence of Gilgamesh.[12]
The Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh, composed about 2500 BC, contains a
flood story almost exactly the same as the Noah story in the
Pentateuch, with a few variations such as the number of days of the
deluge, the order of the birds, and the name of the mountain on which
the ark rests. Andrew R. George submits that the flood story in
Genesis 6�8 matches the Gilgamesh flood myth so closely, "few doubt"
that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[8] What is particularly
noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh
flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story
permits other alternatives.[9]
According to the documentary hypothesis, the first five books of the
Bible (Pentateuch/Torah), including Genesis, were collated during the
5th century BC from four main sources, which themselves date from no
earlier than the 10th century BC. Two of these, the Jahwist, composed
in the 10th century BC, and the Priestly source, from the late 7th
century BC, make up the chapters of Genesis which concern Noah. The
attempt by the 5th century editor to accommodate two independent and
sometimes conflicting sources accounts for the confusion over such
matters as how many pairs of animals Noah took, and how long the flood
lasted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah
and this has nothing to do with what I know, because I can tell you
that I know alot. Chances are I know more about you concerning
christianity
wrote:
>On May 25, 12:16�am, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:52:29 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>You are trying to write something from wikipedia,without quite
>understanding what you are writing about.
>The five books of the bible also called the pentateuch are Genesis,
>Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh texts. Many scholars believe that Noah
and the Biblical Flood story are derived from the Mesopotamian
version, predominantly because Biblical mythology that is today found
in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mandeanism shares overlapping
consistency with far older written ancient Mesopotamian story of The
Great Flood, and that the early Hebrews were known to have lived in
Mesopotamia.[10]
Gilgamesh�s historical reign is believed to have been approximately
2700 BCE,[11] shortly before the earliest known written stories. The
discovery of artifacts associated with Aga and Enmebaragesi of Kish,
two other kings named in the stories, has lent credibility to the
historical existence of Gilgamesh.[12]
The Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh, composed about 2500 BC, contains a
flood story almost exactly the same as the Noah story in the
Pentateuch, with a few variations such as the number of days of the
deluge, the order of the birds, and the name of the mountain on which
the ark rests. Andrew R. George submits that the flood story in
Genesis 6�8 matches the Gilgamesh flood myth so closely, "few doubt"
that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[8] What is particularly
noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh
flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story
permits other alternatives.[9]
According to the documentary hypothesis, the first five books of the
Bible (Pentateuch/Torah), including Genesis, were collated during the
5th century BC from four main sources, which themselves date from no
earlier than the 10th century BC. Two of these, the Jahwist, composed
in the 10th century BC, and the Priestly source, from the late 7th
century BC, make up the chapters of Genesis which concern Noah. The
attempt by the 5th century editor to accommodate two independent and
sometimes conflicting sources accounts for the confusion over such
matters as how many pairs of animals Noah took, and how long the flood
lasted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah
and this has nothing to do with what I know, because I can tell you
that I know alot. Chances are I know more about you concerning
christianity
Free Lunch
May 25, 2013, 11:59:24 AM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:56:51 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:
It's easy to know more. The question is whether it is possible to know
less than jope and still accept reality.
alt.talk.creationism:
less than jope and still accept reality.
Jope
May 25, 2013, 12:44:41 PM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 3:51 am, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 21:53:40 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
God gave mankind dominion over the earth and all animals.Who gave you
the idea that meant independence from God?
Man was intended to be one with God.
You appeared to be rather messed up in your understanding of basic
reality.
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 21:53:40 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
the idea that meant independence from God?
Man was intended to be one with God.
You appeared to be rather messed up in your understanding of basic
reality.
Jope
May 25, 2013, 1:01:37 PM5/25/13
to
evident enough.I certainly know that hell exists
>There are also many scholars who study the book *without* trying to inject themselves into the story. They look at it objectively rather than >subjectively.
traditions,in their efforts to invalidate it.
That is what I am talking about.
Frogs are tetrapods and amphibians.Look up the tree.
>That's what life is to you? Something to be endured?
This a world that is in revolt against God.In the world to come,those
things will be gone.
Jope
May 25, 2013, 1:12:51 PM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 11:59 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:56:51 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote in
> alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 24 May 2013 21:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:56:51 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote in
> alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
not equate knowledge.
If you try to make a cogent argument,I will try to offer a reply.But
senseless rock throwing and affirming your irrational unbelief is not
worth wasting time over.
Anyone can yell insults,if he wants to.Actual reasoning is a lot
harder.I am not sorry however that I took the time to post those
things.Because,I am sure that there are some intelligent lurkers out
there.
bil...@microsoft.com
May 25, 2013, 2:21:03 PM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:44:41 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:
being in command of something or ruling over something does not mean
you have a congress. it means there is one voice one rule. and that
rule is man. No where in thjat passage was it written that man had to
report to or check in with god when something was in question. dude
when will you learn to read and FULLY comprehend the words on the
page.
There was no mention of a joint partnership. I mean seriously cant you
see just how fucked up your book of fairy tales is?
why cant you get it through your head that HUMAN WROTE the bible. They
were not inspired by anything. because if a god wrote it I think there
would be less lies half truths and mistakes in there
wrote:
you have a congress. it means there is one voice one rule. and that
rule is man. No where in thjat passage was it written that man had to
report to or check in with god when something was in question. dude
when will you learn to read and FULLY comprehend the words on the
page.
There was no mention of a joint partnership. I mean seriously cant you
see just how fucked up your book of fairy tales is?
why cant you get it through your head that HUMAN WROTE the bible. They
were not inspired by anything. because if a god wrote it I think there
would be less lies half truths and mistakes in there
bil...@microsoft.com
May 25, 2013, 2:27:49 PM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:12:51 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:
There was nothing there out of context. I posted the facts with the
dates and I posted my source so you could reference it. you are using
the excuse every theist uses when he realizes he has lost the debate.
I posted earlier that some of the stories in the bible were passed
down through told retold copied yada yada you asked me to prove it and
I did. if you are going to run and cry when someone beats you then do
yourself a favor and dont post dumb ass crap like you did
wrote:
dates and I posted my source so you could reference it. you are using
the excuse every theist uses when he realizes he has lost the debate.
I posted earlier that some of the stories in the bible were passed
down through told retold copied yada yada you asked me to prove it and
I did. if you are going to run and cry when someone beats you then do
yourself a favor and dont post dumb ass crap like you did
August Rode
May 25, 2013, 3:26:47 PM5/25/13
to
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:01:37 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On May 25, 7:33 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> On May 25, 7:33 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >If. Since the idea of hell is incoherent (as are the ideas of heaven and God), it's a safe bet that it doesn't exist
>
> I am trying to describe the viewpoint of the atheist.
> That should be
> evident enough.I certainly know that hell exists
> >There are also many scholars who study the book *without* trying to inject themselves into the story. They look at it objectively rather than >subjectively.
>
> Some people are trying to maintain that the bible originated from oral
> traditions,in their efforts to invalidate it.
>
> That is what I am talking about.
>
> Frogs are tetrapods and amphibians.Look up the tree.
> >That's what life is to you? Something to be endured?
>
> Murder, war,sickness,atheism,moral depravity etc...
> This a world that is in revolt against God.In the world to come,those
> things will be gone.
Jope
May 25, 2013, 3:36:20 PM5/25/13
to
> That's what your religion does for you? Teaches >you to see the world as a place of pain and >suffering? Why on earth do you find thinking this >way remotely appealing?
You are unusually irrational today.Is this world ok by your standards?
There is no point in having a discussion, if you are opposing
everything as a matter of reflexes without offering a valid rationale.
August Rode
May 25, 2013, 7:25:51 PM5/25/13
to
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 3:36:20 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On May 25, 3:26 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:01:37 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > > On May 25, 7:33 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >If. Since the idea of hell is incoherent (as are the ideas of heaven and God), it's a safe bet that it doesn't exist
> >
> > > I am trying to describe the viewpoint of the atheist.
> >
> > And failing miserably, I might add. The truth is that you have no basis for understanding anyone with beliefs that differ from your own, and you lack the curiosity to inquire of people who know. So, you make things up.
> >
> > > That should be
> > > evident enough.I certainly know that hell exists
> >
> > You aren't able to distinguish between what you know and what you believe?
> >
> > > >There are also many scholars who study the book *without* trying to inject themselves into the story. They look at it objectively rather than >subjectively.
> >
> > > Some people are trying to maintain that the bible originated from oral
> > > traditions,in their efforts to invalidate it.
> >
> > > That is what I am talking about.
> >
> > > Frogs are tetrapods and amphibians.Look up the tree.
> >
> > I'm well aware of that. Frogs are *not* in our lineage.
> >
> > > >That's what life is to you? Something to be endured?
> >
> > > Murder, war,sickness,atheism,moral depravity etc...
> > > This a world that is in revolt against God.In the world to come,those
> > > things will be gone.
> >
> > That's what your religion does for you? Teaches you to see the world as a place of pain and suffering? Why on earth do you find thinking this way remotely appealing?
>
> >Frogs are *not* in our lineage.
>
> It is a variety of frogs.
No, it isn't. We have amphibians in our lineage but none of them were frogs. There are other types of amphibians, you know.
> On May 25, 3:26 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:01:37 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > > On May 25, 7:33 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >If. Since the idea of hell is incoherent (as are the ideas of heaven and God), it's a safe bet that it doesn't exist
> >
> > > I am trying to describe the viewpoint of the atheist.
> >
> > And failing miserably, I might add. The truth is that you have no basis for understanding anyone with beliefs that differ from your own, and you lack the curiosity to inquire of people who know. So, you make things up.
> >
> > > That should be
> > > evident enough.I certainly know that hell exists
> >
> > You aren't able to distinguish between what you know and what you believe?
> >
> > > >There are also many scholars who study the book *without* trying to inject themselves into the story. They look at it objectively rather than >subjectively.
> >
> > > Some people are trying to maintain that the bible originated from oral
> > > traditions,in their efforts to invalidate it.
> >
> > > That is what I am talking about.
> >
> > > Frogs are tetrapods and amphibians.Look up the tree.
> >
> > I'm well aware of that. Frogs are *not* in our lineage.
> >
> > > >That's what life is to you? Something to be endured?
> >
> > > Murder, war,sickness,atheism,moral depravity etc...
> > > This a world that is in revolt against God.In the world to come,those
> > > things will be gone.
> >
> > That's what your religion does for you? Teaches you to see the world as a place of pain and suffering? Why on earth do you find thinking this way remotely appealing?
>
> >Frogs are *not* in our lineage.
>
> It is a variety of frogs.
> > That's what your religion does for you? Teaches >you to see the world as a place of pain and >suffering? Why on earth do you find thinking this >way remotely appealing?
>
> You are unusually irrational today.Is this world ok by your standards?
In your mythology, the world is what it is because God cursed it.
> There is no point in having a discussion, if you are opposing
> everything as a matter of reflexes without offering a valid rationale.
Jope
May 25, 2013, 8:05:39 PM5/25/13
to
it looks exacly like a bullfrog I can understand why you don't like
your like your ancestor to be called a frog.(Frankly,I don't see the
resemblance.)
The theory of evolution uses a semantic smokescreen in order to debase
humanity.
This world is full of pain and sufferings for many .You need to to
acknowledge that.You cannot say that it is a just a religious
viewpoint and that everything is fine and dandy.That is not
reasonable.
And last, I have been trying for a while now ,to find an atheist that
will state his reasons for being a moral person.Thus far ,I have not
been sucessful.
August Rode
May 25, 2013, 11:59:38 PM5/25/13
to
If we had a frog as an ancestor, I wouldn't have any trouble saying so. We do have rather a lot of ancestors.
You don't see the resemblance between yourself and an amphibian? Seriously? Would you like me to walk you through it?
> The theory of evolution uses a semantic smokescreen in order to debase
> humanity.
> This world is full of pain and sufferings for many .You need to to
> acknowledge that.
> You cannot say that it is a just a religious
> viewpoint and that everything is fine and dandy.That is not
> reasonable.
> And last, I have been trying for a while now ,to find an atheist that
> will state his reasons for being a moral person.Thus far ,I have not
> been sucessful.
I am a moral person because I believe that everyone has rights and that if I want others to respect my rights, then I damn well better respect theirs.
That's the short answer. If you would like me to expand on it, I can likely do so when I have more time available. Don't be afraid to ask questions.
Jope
May 26, 2013, 12:17:49 AM5/26/13
to
So, you got your morality from the declaration of independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness"
You are a true patriot.
August Rode
May 26, 2013, 12:24:53 AM5/26/13
to
On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:17:49 AM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On May 25, 11:59 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> On May 25, 11:59 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > And last, I have been trying for a while now ,to find an atheist that
> > > will state his reasons for being a moral person.Thus far ,I have not
> > > been sucessful.
> >
> > I didn't know that you were looking for that. Let me provide you an answer.
> >
> > I am a moral person because I believe that everyone has rights and that if I want others to respect my rights, then I damn well better respect theirs.
> >
> > That's the short answer. If you would like me to expand on it, I can likely do so when I have more time available. Don't be afraid to ask questions.
>
> >I am a moral person because I believe that everyone has rights.
>
> So, you got your morality from the declaration of independence:
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> Happiness"
>
> You are a true patriot.
Jope
May 26, 2013, 11:46:12 AM5/26/13
to
August Rode
May 26, 2013, 2:23:42 PM5/26/13
to
On Sunday, May 26, 2013 11:46:12 AM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On May 26, 12:24 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:17:49 AM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > > On May 25, 11:59 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > And last, I have been trying for a while now ,to find an atheist that
> > > > > will state his reasons for being a moral person.Thus far ,I have not
> > > > > been sucessful.
> >
> > > > I didn't know that you were looking for that. Let me provide you an answer.
> >
> > > > I am a moral person because I believe that everyone has rights.
> On May 26, 12:24 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:17:49 AM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > > On May 25, 11:59 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > And last, I have been trying for a while now ,to find an atheist that
> > > > > will state his reasons for being a moral person.Thus far ,I have not
> > > > > been sucessful.
> >
> > > > I didn't know that you were looking for that. Let me provide you an answer.
> >
> >
> > > > That's the short answer. If you would like me to expand on it, I can likely do so when I have more time available. Don't be afraid to ask questions.
> >
> > > >I am a moral person because I believe that everyone has rights.
> >
> > > So, you got your morality from the declaration of independence:
> > > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> > > equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> > > Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> > > Happiness"
> >
> > > You are a true patriot.
> >
> > I am not an American and I do not live in the United States so, no, I didn't get my morality from the DoI.
>
> Where did you get it from?
I was taught to treat people fairly and honestly by my parents and by members of the society that I interacted with on a regular basis when I was young. My contribution is the recognition of an individual's rights which allows me to distill what I believe about morality for better communication.
> > > > That's the short answer. If you would like me to expand on it, I can likely do so when I have more time available. Don't be afraid to ask questions.
> >
> > > >I am a moral person because I believe that everyone has rights.
> >
> > > So, you got your morality from the declaration of independence:
> > > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> > > equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> > > Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> > > Happiness"
> >
> > > You are a true patriot.
> >
> > I am not an American and I do not live in the United States so, no, I didn't get my morality from the DoI.
>
> Where did you get it from?
By the way, your little snippage of what I said wasn't appreciated. What I said was:
"I am a moral person because I believe that everyone
has rights and that if I want others to respect my
rights, then I damn well better respect theirs."
Jope
May 26, 2013, 5:21:52 PM5/26/13
to
August Rode
May 26, 2013, 6:24:49 PM5/26/13
to
Christianity (I was raised Lutheran) contributed virtually nothing to my ethical system. Indeed, what I saw in church in terms of how people behaved and how they treated each other is part of why I'm an atheist now. My eyes were wide open and I saw absolutely no difference between people that I knew to be Christians and anyone else whose religious affiliation I didn't know.
There is (in my opinion) nothing about Christianity which will improve a person's ethics if they aren't particularly ethical to begin with and aren't particularly inclined to change.
Besides, do you not think you had a good ethical base in place well before you could understand what Christianity was all about? Most people do.
Jope
May 26, 2013, 7:53:58 PM5/26/13
to
Christianity is one hundred percent about ethics.You should not use
the pretext of human failings to indict a doctrine that came from God
himself.That will not be a valid defense in the day of judgement.Any
one can call himself a christian.Only those that follow the
commandments of Jesus Christ are christians.
"Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in
your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform
many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away
from me, you evildoers!"
Matthew 7v22-23
August Rode
May 26, 2013, 10:52:29 PM5/26/13
to
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule>
There is a modern formulation that I prefer: do unto others as they would have you do unto them.
> Christianity is one hundred percent about ethics.
What the New Testament has to say about ethics could be condensed to a single page of paper. What the Old Testament has to say about ethics is inconsistent in the extreme.
> You should not use
> the pretext of human failings to indict a doctrine that came from God
> himself.
> That will not be a valid defense in the day of judgement.Any
> one can call himself a christian.Only those that follow the
> commandments of Jesus Christ are christians.
Do you follow Jesus' commandments? Have you, for example, sold everything you have? (Luke 18:22) If you have not followed that particular commandment, and if Christians are those who follow Jesus' commandments, then on what basis do you call yourself a Christian?
Jope
May 27, 2013, 12:39:45 AM5/27/13
to
live the perfect christian life.
The apostle Paul received the following commandments from te Lord:
" Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should
remain in the situation they were in when God called them."
1 Corinthians 7:24
"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant
nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put
their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our
enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to
be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up
treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so
that they may take hold of the life that is truly life."
1 Timothy 6v17v19
Therefore ,it is not an absolute requirement to get rid of material
possessions.Only a standard for perfection.
>The Golden Rule, of which that maxim is one example, exist in
virtually every religion and in none. It isn't exclusive to
Christianity.
Bible ,Job was a righeous man,yet he was not an israelite,he did not
know the law of Moses.
The prophet Balaam had the hears of God,yet he dis not know of Mosaic
laws.
God has made sure that people know right from wrong.
That is the why ,it is written :
" All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law,
and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is
not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is
those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."
Romans 2v12-13
God has even written moral laws into the hearts of men:
"when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required
by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not
have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written
on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their
thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending
them."
Romans 2v14-15
>I'd be curious to know if any other Christian reading this agrees with Jope's statement. After all 100% about ethics logically means 0% about belief. I >was taught that Christianity was about belief.
following commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
"For whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments,
“You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall
not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there
may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as
yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the
fulfillment of the law."
Romans 13v8-10
>What the New Testament has to say about ethics could be condensed to a single page of paper.
God wants his people to be holy blameless and spotless.
The Christian is engaged in a war against sin.The promise of eternal
life is for the overcomer:
"He who overcomes and who obeys My commands to the end , I will give
him authority and power over the nations"
Revelation 2v26
It is a bit abnormal to be giving so many verses to an atheist.Maybe
God will end up snatching you or some other person,from the Lake of
fire.
harry k
May 27, 2013, 10:22:22 AM5/27/13
to
On May 24, 9:30 am, jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By Joe McKeever
>
It may come as news to you but even atheists don't "believe in
atheism"
<snip> ridiculous crap
Harry K
> By Joe McKeever
>
It may come as news to you but even atheists don't "believe in
atheism"
<snip> ridiculous crap
Harry K
August Rode
May 27, 2013, 11:08:15 AM5/27/13
to
On Monday, May 27, 2013 12:39:45 AM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On May 26, 10:52 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> On May 26, 10:52 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do you follow Jesus' commandments? Have you, for example, sold everything you have? (Luke 18:22) If you have not followed that particular commandment, and if Christians are those who follow Jesus' commandments, then on what basis do you call yourself a Christian?
>
> Jesus set the standards for perfection.But not everybody is able to
> live the perfect christian life.
And yet he told a rich man to divest himself of his property if he wanted eternal life. Was Jesus mocking the man? Was it a suggestion?
> live the perfect christian life.
From the remainder of your response, I can presume that your answer to my question is "no, I have not followed that commandment." Can I take it then that you aren't a Christian? Or should I take it that you will continue to call yourself a Christian?
> The apostle Paul received the following commandments from te Lord:
>
> " Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should
> remain in the situation they were in when God called them."
> 1 Corinthians 7:24
> "Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant
> nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put
> their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our
> enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to
> be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up
> treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so
> that they may take hold of the life that is truly life."
>
> 1 Timothy 6v17v19
>
> Therefore ,it is not an absolute requirement to get rid of material
> possessions.Only a standard for perfection.
> >The Golden Rule, of which that maxim is one example, exist in
> virtually every religion and in none. It isn't exclusive to
> Christianity.
>
> God has not left people in the dark about right and wrong.In the
> Bible ,Job was a righeous man,yet he was not an israelite,he did not
> know the law of Moses.
> The Christian is engaged in a war against sin.The promise of eternal
> life is for the overcomer:
>
> "He who overcomes and who obeys My commands to the end , I will give
> him authority and power over the nations"
> Revelation 2v26
>
> It is a bit abnormal to be giving so many verses to an atheist.
> Maybe
> God will end up snatching you or some other person,from the Lake of
> fire.
Jope
May 27, 2013, 11:35:00 AM5/27/13
to
Remember ,salvation is by faith ,not by sight.
August Rode
May 27, 2013, 12:01:11 PM5/27/13
to
On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On May 27, 11:08 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> On May 27, 11:08 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It is a bit abnormal to be giving so many verses to an atheist.
> >
> > Would you rather be giving them to believers? For what purpose?
> >
> > > Maybe
> > > God will end up snatching you or some other person,from the Lake of
> > > fire.
> >
>
> He commanded us to warn you people.Judgemet will be fair.
> Remember ,salvation is by faith ,not by sight.
Salvation from what? Being human? Go on... pull the other one.
> He commanded us to warn you people.Judgemet will be fair.
> Remember ,salvation is by faith ,not by sight.
Anyway, it's become obvious that you're not particularly interested in any sort of open discussion. There was, after all, a significant number of points in my previous response that you could have addressed but elected not to.
Could I at least ask you to acknowledge that you have now found an atheist that has told you his reasons for being a moral person? I'd like to be certain that your claim that "I have been trying for a while now to find an atheist that will state his reasons for being a moral person. Thus far, I have not been successful." has been successfully addressed. However, given how little discussion there was about that, you'll forgive me if I don't understand why you were searching for such a person. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
Free Lunch
May 27, 2013, 12:04:19 PM5/27/13
to
On Mon, 27 May 2013 08:35:00 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:
...
>> And he need your help to do that, does he?
>He commanded us to warn you people.Judgemet will be fair.
>Remember ,salvation is by faith ,not by sight.
So you claim, but you have no evidence that the book you are cribbing
your claims from is true in any sense. We already know that it contains
a great number of stories that are know to be fiction, that make claims
that are contrary to the collected evidence.
in alt.talk.creationism:
...
>> And he need your help to do that, does he?
>He commanded us to warn you people.Judgemet will be fair.
>Remember ,salvation is by faith ,not by sight.
your claims from is true in any sense. We already know that it contains
a great number of stories that are know to be fiction, that make claims
that are contrary to the collected evidence.
Terry Cross
May 27, 2013, 1:03:03 PM5/27/13
to
On May 27, 7:22 am, harry k <turn...@q.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 9:30 am, jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > By Joe McKeever
>
> It may come as news to you but even atheists don't "believe in
> atheism"
In daily operation, you are quite wrong. The Communists firmly
> On May 24, 9:30 am, jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > By Joe McKeever
>
> It may come as news to you but even atheists don't "believe in
> atheism"
believed in what they were doing. The people on your board are
confident to the point of arrogance that the process of industrial
science brings only truth to the world.
TCross
Free Lunch
May 27, 2013, 1:37:08 PM5/27/13
to
On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:03:03 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
But, as you know, neither of those things are "believing in atheism."
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Jope
May 27, 2013, 3:01:26 PM5/27/13
to
is the point that I was making.
>I was taught to treat people fairly and honestly by >my parents and by members of the society .
Earlier I posted that the atheist is a moral time bomb.Here is why:
Our current moral values are derived from the idea that man has a
transcendental value.He has a soul and he is accountable to God.In one
form or another ,that idea is identical accross all cultures.
But according to the atheist,man is just a bunch of chemicals that
came together by accident.The atheist also believes in abiogenesis.
Those viewpoints have moral implications:
What is the value of a bunch of chemicals?.What kind of society can be
built on those atheistic premises?
Can you visualize the nightmare of having disposable human beings?
Free Lunch
May 27, 2013, 3:04:38 PM5/27/13
to
On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:01:26 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:
>On May 27, 12:01 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>> > On May 27, 11:08 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > > > It is a bit abnormal to be giving so many verses to an atheist.
>>
>> > > Would you rather be giving them to believers? For what purpose?
>>
>> > > > Maybe
>> > > > God will end up snatching you or some other person,from the Lake of
>> > > > fire.
>>
>> > > And he needs your help to do that, does he?
>>
>> > He commanded us to warn you people.Judgemet will be fair.
>> > Remember ,salvation is by faith ,not by sight.
>>
>> Salvation from what? Being human? Go on... pull the other one.
>>
>> Anyway, it's become obvious that you're not particularly interested in any sort of open discussion. There was, after all, a significant number of points in my previous response that you could have addressed but elected not to.
>>
>> Could I at least ask you to acknowledge that you have now found an atheist that has told you his reasons for being a moral person? I'd like to be certain that your claim that "I have been trying for a while now to find an atheist that will state his reasons for being a moral person. Thus far, I have not been successful." has been successfully addressed. However, given how little discussion there was about that, you'll forgive me if I don't understand why you were searching for such a person. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
>
>
>
>
>>Could I at least ask you to acknowledge that you >have now found an atheist that has told you his >reasons for being a moral person
>You got your moral values from your christian parents, period.And that
>is the point that I was making.
>>I was taught to treat people fairly and honestly by >my parents and by members of the society .
>
>Earlier I posted that the atheist is a moral time bomb.Here is why:
>Our current moral values are derived from the idea that man has a
>transcendental value.
No.
>He has a soul and he is accountable to God.
No.
>In one form or another ,that idea is identical accross all cultures.
No.
>But according to the atheist,man is just a bunch of chemicals that
>came together by accident.
Not exactly, and that has nothing to do with ethical (moral) behavior.
>The atheist also believes in abiogenesis.
Accepts the evidence that shows that abiogenesis happened.
>Those viewpoints have moral implications:
So you claim, but fail to show.
>What is the value of a bunch of chemicals?.What kind of society can be
>built on those atheistic premises?
No one is building anything on your false assertion.
>Can you visualize the nightmare of having disposable human beings?
"Soylent Green is people."
You are not making any sense at all.
in alt.talk.creationism:
>On May 27, 12:01 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>> > On May 27, 11:08 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > > > It is a bit abnormal to be giving so many verses to an atheist.
>>
>> > > Would you rather be giving them to believers? For what purpose?
>>
>> > > > Maybe
>> > > > God will end up snatching you or some other person,from the Lake of
>> > > > fire.
>>
>> > > And he needs your help to do that, does he?
>>
>> > He commanded us to warn you people.Judgemet will be fair.
>> > Remember ,salvation is by faith ,not by sight.
>>
>> Salvation from what? Being human? Go on... pull the other one.
>>
>> Anyway, it's become obvious that you're not particularly interested in any sort of open discussion. There was, after all, a significant number of points in my previous response that you could have addressed but elected not to.
>>
>> Could I at least ask you to acknowledge that you have now found an atheist that has told you his reasons for being a moral person? I'd like to be certain that your claim that "I have been trying for a while now to find an atheist that will state his reasons for being a moral person. Thus far, I have not been successful." has been successfully addressed. However, given how little discussion there was about that, you'll forgive me if I don't understand why you were searching for such a person. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
>
>
>
>
>>Could I at least ask you to acknowledge that you >have now found an atheist that has told you his >reasons for being a moral person
>You got your moral values from your christian parents, period.And that
>is the point that I was making.
>>I was taught to treat people fairly and honestly by >my parents and by members of the society .
>
>Earlier I posted that the atheist is a moral time bomb.Here is why:
>Our current moral values are derived from the idea that man has a
>transcendental value.
>He has a soul and he is accountable to God.
>In one form or another ,that idea is identical accross all cultures.
>But according to the atheist,man is just a bunch of chemicals that
>came together by accident.
>The atheist also believes in abiogenesis.
>Those viewpoints have moral implications:
>What is the value of a bunch of chemicals?.What kind of society can be
>built on those atheistic premises?
>Can you visualize the nightmare of having disposable human beings?
You are not making any sense at all.
Jope
May 27, 2013, 3:09:21 PM5/27/13
to
On May 27, 3:04 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:01:26 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote
Can You at least spend five minutes to understand a viewpoint?
If something that simple cannot make sense to you...
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:01:26 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote
If something that simple cannot make sense to you...
Terry Cross
May 27, 2013, 3:25:23 PM5/27/13
to
On May 27, 10:37 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:03:03 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:03:03 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
is the belief in heaven and hell, so Atheism is the unwavering belief
that the process of government and industry-financed science (and only
that process) will find the truth of black holes, quarks, and belly-
buttons.
TCross
Ken
May 27, 2013, 4:05:22 PM5/27/13
to
On May 27, 12:01 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote the usual load of
worthless biblecrapola notm worth repeating
Who actually here cares what you believe?
You said: "What is the value of a bunch of chemicals?"
Speaking as a chemist, EVERYTHING!
worthless biblecrapola notm worth repeating
Who actually here cares what you believe?
You said: "What is the value of a bunch of chemicals?"
Speaking as a chemist, EVERYTHING!
Free Lunch
May 27, 2013, 4:20:17 PM5/27/13
to
On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:09:21 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
I do understand your viewpoint. You are wrong. You are indefensibly
wrong. You make false claims and then justify your false conclusions
based on those false claims.
wrong. You make false claims and then justify your false conclusions
based on those false claims.
Free Lunch
May 27, 2013, 4:21:17 PM5/27/13
to
On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:25:23 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On May 27, 10:37�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:03:03 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>> >On May 27, 7:22�am, harry k <turn...@q.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 24, 9:30�am, jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > By Joe McKeever
>>
>> >> It may come as news to you but even atheists don't "believe in
>> >> atheism"
>>
>> >In daily operation, you are quite wrong. �The Communists firmly
>> >believed in what they were doing. �The people on your board are
>> >confident to the point of arrogance that the process of industrial
>> >science brings only truth to the world.
>>
>> But, as you know, neither of those things are "believing in atheism."
>
>On the contrary -- it is a package.
Such hogwash you spew.
>As much as you claim Christianity
>is the belief in heaven and hell, so Atheism is the unwavering belief
>that the process of government and industry-financed science (and only
>that process) will find the truth of black holes, quarks, and belly-
>buttons.
Do you even care how wrong you are?
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On May 27, 10:37�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:03:03 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>> >On May 27, 7:22�am, harry k <turn...@q.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 24, 9:30�am, jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > By Joe McKeever
>>
>> >> It may come as news to you but even atheists don't "believe in
>> >> atheism"
>>
>> >In daily operation, you are quite wrong. �The Communists firmly
>> >believed in what they were doing. �The people on your board are
>> >confident to the point of arrogance that the process of industrial
>> >science brings only truth to the world.
>>
>> But, as you know, neither of those things are "believing in atheism."
>
>On the contrary -- it is a package.
>As much as you claim Christianity
>is the belief in heaven and hell, so Atheism is the unwavering belief
>that the process of government and industry-financed science (and only
>that process) will find the truth of black holes, quarks, and belly-
>buttons.
August Rode
May 27, 2013, 5:10:54 PM5/27/13
to
On Monday, May 27, 2013 3:01:26 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On May 27, 12:01 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > > On May 27, 11:08 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > It is a bit abnormal to be giving so many verses to an atheist.
> >
> > > > Would you rather be giving them to believers? For what purpose?
> >
> > > > > Maybe
> > > > > God will end up snatching you or some other person,from the Lake of
> > > > > fire.
> >
> > > > And he needs your help to do that, does he?
> >
> > > He commanded us to warn you people.Judgemet will be fair.
> > > Remember ,salvation is by faith ,not by sight.
> >
> > Salvation from what? Being human? Go on... pull the other one.
> >
> > Anyway, it's become obvious that you're not particularly interested in any sort of open discussion. There was, after all, a significant number of points in my previous response that you could have addressed but elected not to.
> >
> > Could I at least ask you to acknowledge that you have now found an atheist that has told you his reasons for being a moral person? I'd like to be certain that your claim that "I have been trying for a while now to find an atheist that will state his reasons for being a moral person. Thus far, I have not been successful." has been successfully addressed. However, given how little discussion there was about that, you'll forgive me if I don't understand why you were searching for such a person. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
>
> >Could I at least ask you to acknowledge that you >have now found an atheist that has told you his >reasons for being a moral person
>
> You got your moral values from your christian parents, period.And that
> is the point that I was making.
Can you demonstrate to me that their ethics are the result of their Christianity?
> On May 27, 12:01 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > > On May 27, 11:08 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > It is a bit abnormal to be giving so many verses to an atheist.
> >
> > > > Would you rather be giving them to believers? For what purpose?
> >
> > > > > Maybe
> > > > > God will end up snatching you or some other person,from the Lake of
> > > > > fire.
> >
> > > > And he needs your help to do that, does he?
> >
> > > He commanded us to warn you people.Judgemet will be fair.
> > > Remember ,salvation is by faith ,not by sight.
> >
> > Salvation from what? Being human? Go on... pull the other one.
> >
> > Anyway, it's become obvious that you're not particularly interested in any sort of open discussion. There was, after all, a significant number of points in my previous response that you could have addressed but elected not to.
> >
> > Could I at least ask you to acknowledge that you have now found an atheist that has told you his reasons for being a moral person? I'd like to be certain that your claim that "I have been trying for a while now to find an atheist that will state his reasons for being a moral person. Thus far, I have not been successful." has been successfully addressed. However, given how little discussion there was about that, you'll forgive me if I don't understand why you were searching for such a person. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
>
> >Could I at least ask you to acknowledge that you >have now found an atheist that has told you his >reasons for being a moral person
>
> You got your moral values from your christian parents, period.And that
> is the point that I was making.
> >I was taught to treat people fairly and honestly by >my parents and by members of the society .
>
> Earlier I posted that the atheist is a moral time bomb.Here is why:
>
> Our current moral values are derived from the idea that man has a
> transcendental value.He has a soul and he is accountable to God.In one
> form or another ,that idea is identical accross all cultures.
>
> But according to the atheist,man is just a bunch of chemicals that
> came together by accident.
> The atheist also believes in abiogenesis.
> Those viewpoints have moral implications:
>
> What is the value of a bunch of chemicals?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection>
and I'm not bound to your views and opinions.
> What kind of society can be
> built on those atheistic premises?
You *can* build a society on humanism and many, perhaps most, atheists are also humanists.
> Can you visualize the nightmare of having disposable human beings?
jope
May 28, 2013, 1:06:25 AM5/28/13
to
charlatans who are legion
I have seen some things that were quite out of the ordinary.And I
believe that
I am an eyewitness who can stand up to a courtroom examination.
>For example, NDEs only occur in people whose brains are compromised due
to a lack of oxygen.
I have been reading about NDE and OBE for over thirty years now ,and I
can
tell you, that is not the case.
Besides, saying that brain is deprived of oxygen is not an explanation
at all.
Because,when the mind goes silent,the soul comes into evidence.
That is the very technique that is used to induce OBE at will.
In order to explain NDE and OBE ,you need to explain the following
phenomena.
1-The ability for a person to see his body lying down on the bed and
see
other people as well ,from an elevated position,while being
unconscious.
2-The ability to see with great details ,what is happening somewhere
else,while being unconscious.
3-The ability of a blind person to see colored details ,while being
unconscious.
There is a lot more.But those preceding phenomena, have been
meticulously and scientifically documented.
For more information, I can refer you to dr. Michael Sabom 's book.
"Recollections of death"
My experience with atheists has brought me to conclude, that they are
a
bunch of simplistic people that come to sweeping conclusions without
any
investigation.
And they also assume that there is a simple ,natural explanation for
everything
in the universe.
That attitude could not withstand a courtroom examination.
August Rode
May 28, 2013, 8:30:14 AM5/28/13
to
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:06:25 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
> On May 27, 5:10 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 27, 2013 3:01:26 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > > On May 27, 12:01 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > > > > On May 27, 11:08 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > It is a bit abnormal to be giving so many verses to an atheist.
> >
> > > > > > Would you rather be giving them to believers? For what purpose?
> >
> > > > > > > Maybe
> > > > > > > God will end up snatching you or some other person,from the Lake of
> > > > > > > fire.
> >
> > > > > > And he needs your help to do that, does he?
> >
> > > > > He commanded us to warn you people.Judgemet will be fair.
> > > > > Remember ,salvation is by faith ,not by sight.
> >
> > > > Salvation from what? Being human? Go on... pull the other one.
> >
> > > > Anyway, it's become obvious that you're not particularly interested in any sort of open discussion. There was, after all, a significant number of points in my previous response that you could have addressed but elected not to.
> >
> > > > Could I at least ask you to acknowledge that you have now found an atheist that has told you his reasons for being a moral person? I'd like to be certain that your claim that "I have been trying for a while now to find an atheist that will state his reasons for being a moral person. Thus far, I have not been successful." has been successfully addressed. However, given how little discussion there was about that, you'll forgive me if I don't understand why you were searching for such a person. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
> >
> > > >Could I at least ask you to acknowledge that you >have now found an atheist that has told you his >reasons for being a moral person
> >
> > > You got your moral values from your christian parents, period.And that
> > > is the point that I was making.
> >
> > Can you demonstrate to me that their ethics are the result of their Christianity?
Hmm... no response to this. I wonder what that means.
> On May 27, 5:10 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 27, 2013 3:01:26 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > > On May 27, 12:01 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > > > > On May 27, 11:08 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > It is a bit abnormal to be giving so many verses to an atheist.
> >
> > > > > > Would you rather be giving them to believers? For what purpose?
> >
> > > > > > > Maybe
> > > > > > > God will end up snatching you or some other person,from the Lake of
> > > > > > > fire.
> >
> > > > > > And he needs your help to do that, does he?
> >
> > > > > He commanded us to warn you people.Judgemet will be fair.
> > > > > Remember ,salvation is by faith ,not by sight.
> >
> > > > Salvation from what? Being human? Go on... pull the other one.
> >
> > > > Anyway, it's become obvious that you're not particularly interested in any sort of open discussion. There was, after all, a significant number of points in my previous response that you could have addressed but elected not to.
> >
> > > > Could I at least ask you to acknowledge that you have now found an atheist that has told you his reasons for being a moral person? I'd like to be certain that your claim that "I have been trying for a while now to find an atheist that will state his reasons for being a moral person. Thus far, I have not been successful." has been successfully addressed. However, given how little discussion there was about that, you'll forgive me if I don't understand why you were searching for such a person. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
> >
> > > >Could I at least ask you to acknowledge that you >have now found an atheist that has told you his >reasons for being a moral person
> >
> > > You got your moral values from your christian parents, period.And that
> > > is the point that I was making.
> >
> > Can you demonstrate to me that their ethics are the result of their Christianity?
> >For example, NDEs only occur in people whose brains are compromised due
> to a lack of oxygen.
>
> I have been reading about NDE and OBE for over thirty years now ,and I
> can tell you, that is not the case.
> Besides, saying that brain is deprived of oxygen is not an explanation
> at all.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_hypoxia>
Cerebral hypoxia may not be a *complete* explanation, but it is a contributing factor in NDEs.
> Because,when the mind goes silent,the soul comes into evidence.
<snip>
> My experience with atheists has brought me to conclude, that they are
> a bunch of simplistic people that come to sweeping conclusions without
> any investigation.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias>
> And they also assume that there is a simple ,natural explanation for
> everything in the universe.
The fact is that there are things for which we don't currently know the explanation. I don't have a problem saying that we don't know what the explanation is. You, on the other hand, seem to think that if we don't know what the explanation is, that God or some other "transcendental" thing must therefore be the explanation. There's a technical term for such thinking. It's called Making Shit Up. You do not get to do that. If you offer something as an explanation for a phenomenon, you *must* show that it is *actually* an explanation.
> That attitude could not withstand a courtroom examination.
harry k
May 28, 2013, 11:03:42 AM5/28/13
to
working and has worked since the dawn of history to explain nature.
Do you have any examples of _ANY_ explanation that religion came up
with wot explain a natural fact?
Harry K
August Rode
May 28, 2013, 11:52:58 AM5/28/13
to
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:06:25 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
<snip>
> In order to explain NDE and OBE ,you need to explain the following
> phenomena.
>
> 1-The ability for a person to see his body lying down on the bed and
> see other people as well ,from an elevated position,while being
> unconscious.
> 2-The ability to see with great details ,what is happening somewhere
> else,while being unconscious.
> 3-The ability of a blind person to see colored details ,while being
> unconscious.
Sight involves two distinct types of organs. The eyes are a sensory organ which work by detecting photons of light that are emitted or reflected from a scene into electrochemical signals which are passed along the optic nerve to the brain. The brain receives those signals and routes the signals to various processing centers which extract different pieces of information which are then reintegrated and cross-referenced, resulting in identification of objects in the scene. Precisely how this happens is still the subject of numerous scientific study but there is no reason to doubt that it does happen. Sight requires that the person be conscious.
But sight is not the only way of having a visual experience. The eyes can be bypassed entirely as tends to happen when one is dreaming. In this case, the visual experience is built entirely within the brain. Again, precisely how this happens isn't currently known but is the subject of experimentation. Nevertheless, the brain has access to a vast store of imagery that has been collected throughout our lives and we know from dreams that it is perfectly capable of making use of that. These types of visual experiences do *not* require that the person having the experience be conscious.
The response for your points 1, 2 and 3 above, Jope, is that the visual experiences that such people have are *not* sight. The visual experiences are being manufactured within their brains and they are misinterpreting the experiences as coming from outside the body.
You might think that I've never had such an experience as you describe. In fact, I've had what's referred to as a false awakening:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_awakening>
It was a lucid dream and I can still tell you everything that happened in great detail and I can describe all of the colors that I experienced. If I had not taken the time to think the dream through and to check to see if what had happened during the dream had happened in reality, I might well have thought that it had really happened. But it didn't. One event that was possible proved to have *not* happened. In addition, there was one event that was impossible which I might have missed if I hadn't seriously reflected on the dream.
I've also had three episodes of sleep paralysis:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis>
In one episode, I had what's referred to as a hypnopompic hallucination, typically interpreted as seeing a shadowy intruder such as a space alien, witch or demon. And I do mean *seeing* as my eyes were open and I was conscious. Again, on serious reflection, I'm satisfied that what I saw was in fact manufactured by my brain.
Stories about people's "out of body" experiences have to be taken with a grain of salt. There is much that appears to happen outside of our bodies that actually happens inside our bodies. In the absence of a known mechanism for seeing without the use of a sensory organ and brain, and in light of perfectly adequate physical explanations that don't require that the transcendental be posited, my position has to continue to be one of skepticism.
Let me be crystal clear for you:
I want you to make a sound argument for
the existence of the soul.
If you're unfamiliar with the term "sound argument", it's an argument in which the premises are demonstrably true and which contains no logical fallacies.
-------------------------------
I will be the first to admit that I haven't read the book that you've been recommending to me. However, in the interest of fairness and *if* you're willing to discuss its contents without constantly accusing me of contrariness, I will gladly do so but be advised that I will come at it from a skeptical position. Let me know how you'd like to proceed.
Jope
May 28, 2013, 2:30:27 PM5/28/13
to
experiencers are able to describe with details,things that are
happening
at other locations.And those descriptions were verified.That is what
makes it different from a dream.
There is also another phenomenon,that is not part of the book,but,
which is sometimes reported:People having OBE's are on occasion able
to appear in a semi visible form to others.
Even though ,I like to read about NDE and OBE ,I do not feel
comfortable ,as a christian ,to delve too deeply into those things.
But I personally knew someone who had and OBE.He used the
expression :"semi material" to describe the so called astral body.
Investigating those experiences,come with the serious limitation of
not having a valid instrument to measure those phenomena.
Anyway,believing that those things really happened ,is not the same
thing as believing in God.
But the atheist is afraid of stepping out of his comfort zone,lest his
artificially constructed universe comes crumbling down.
What is needed here is the ability to let the facts lead you wherever
they may, and not build a firewall against the truth.
Terry Cross
May 28, 2013, 2:46:18 PM5/28/13
to
purpose of science.
> Do you have any examples of _ANY_ explanation that religion came up
> with wot explain a natural fact?
Atheism, your question evokes thousands of answers. The West Coast
Haidas had hundreds of explanations for natural facts, all now classed
as "Raven" stories.
TCross
Ralph
May 28, 2013, 2:56:42 PM5/28/13
to
Free Lunch
May 28, 2013, 2:58:00 PM5/28/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:46:18 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
That makes no sense.
>> Do you have any examples of _ANY_ explanation that religion came up
>> with wot explain a natural fact?
>
>Explaining nature is one of the purposes of all religions, including
>Atheism, your question evokes thousands of answers. The West Coast
>Haidas had hundreds of explanations for natural facts, all now classed
>as "Raven" stories.
You seem to have no idea what words like "science", "explain", "nature",
"atheism", or "purpose" mean.
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> Do you have any examples of _ANY_ explanation that religion came up
>> with wot explain a natural fact?
>
>Explaining nature is one of the purposes of all religions, including
>Atheism, your question evokes thousands of answers. The West Coast
>Haidas had hundreds of explanations for natural facts, all now classed
>as "Raven" stories.
"atheism", or "purpose" mean.
Terry Cross
May 28, 2013, 3:14:47 PM5/28/13
to
On May 28, 11:58 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:46:18 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:46:18 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
"explanations." Real science has a higher purpose.
> >> Do you have any examples of _ANY_ explanation that religion came up
> >> with wot explain a natural fact?
>
> >Explaining nature is one of the purposes of all religions, including
> >Atheism, your question evokes thousands of answers. The West Coast
> >Haidas had hundreds of explanations for natural facts, all now classed
> >as "Raven" stories.
>
> You seem to have no idea what words like "science", "explain", "nature",
> "atheism", or "purpose" mean.
sure all the feathers on your headdress are securely fastened.
TCross
Terry Cross
May 28, 2013, 3:16:10 PM5/28/13
to
through the Communist countries.
TCross
Free Lunch
May 28, 2013, 4:35:21 PM5/28/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
False on both claims.
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
August Rode
May 28, 2013, 7:51:13 PM5/28/13
to
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:30:27 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On May 28, 11:52 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> On May 28, 11:52 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is needed here is the ability to let the facts lead you wherever
> they may, and not build a firewall against the truth.
Immortalist
May 28, 2013, 9:38:38 PM5/28/13
to
> “In the beginning, God….” (Genesis 1:1)
>
> "Nowhere does the Bible try to prove the existence of God. He is.
> Period.
>
> Deal with it, earthlings.
>
> Humanistic evangelists and atheistic peddlers are sure that we
> mindless theists have never considered the superior evidence for the
> positions they hold. Surely, if we did, they think, we would renounce
> the church and join them.
>
> Once again, believers are lumped together by those who “just don’t
> get it” as the terminally naive, the hopelessly hopeful, the
> unthinking uneducated and the irrationally illiterate.
>
> Most of the solid believers I know have considered atheism at one time
> or other. I did, while in college. This is not to say I joined the
> humanist society of Birmingham or majored in skepticism at Birmingham-
> Southern. But I read some of the stuff, talked to a few of the people,
> thought about the ramifications of it all, and made my choice to take
> my stand with believers.
>
> I’ve never regretted it.
>
> Here’s why.
>
> 1) As a rule, atheists tend to be a pretty miserable lot, while the
> best Christians I know are also the most put-together, positive, and
> effective people in the room.
>
> I heard someone say once, “The devil has no godly old people.” Indeed.
> We could add that the Lord also seems to have all the best-mannered,
> generous-hearted, goal-oriented achievers. If you look at the product
> of atheism and Christianity, there is no contest.
>
> 2) Since faith is required for either position, choosing to believe
> this amazing universe came together by chance and will go out the same
> way requires far more faith than this Alabama farm boy can muster. As
> has been said in the book by this title, “I don’t have faith enough to
> be an atheist.”
>
> 3) While it’s true a large portion of Christians have probably not
> investigated various apologetic aspects–evidence for the resurrection,
> the historicity of Jesus, the integrity of Scriptures– a great many
> have. I sat in the room with Dr. Carl F. H. Henry in the summer of
> 1978 as he said to some of us, “Christianity is the only world
> religion that has come through the scientific revolution and emerged
> intact.” Some of the others are fighting tooth and claw to keep
> modern technology from taking a look at their authoritative writings.
>
> 4) I do like the old line of reasoning that goes: “If the atheist is
> true and after death, we all disappear into nothingness, then as a
> Christian I have lost nothing. But if Jesus Christ is true and after
> death life just begins to get interesting, then the atheist is in a
> lot of trouble.” What about that can they not see?
>
> 5) If we know people by their fruits, then philosophies should
> identify themselves the same way. So, does anyone know any charitable
> ministry ever started by the atheists? Show me one and I can show you
> a hundred hospitals and colleges, children’s homes and crisis centers
> begun by Christ-followers.
>
> 6) There are the miracles, such as the existence of Holy Scriptures
> (the uniformity of them, the prophecies, the clarity, and a thousand
> other aspects), the existence of the Man of Galilee (His birth, life,
> death, and resurrection; His teachings and promises, etc), the
> existence of the Church (so flawed, without its divine nature, surely
> it would have vanished long ago), and the existence of honest inquiry
> among believers (a sure sign, if you ask me, that God’s people are
> into Truth and nothing else).
>
> 7) My testimony–and yours–on the power of Jesus Christ who changed our
> lives. And, as C. S. Lewis pointed out, if a skeptic scoffs that my
> life is so far inferior to what a true Christian should look like, I
> do not argue with that, but reply that my life is still so far beyond
> what it would have been without Christ.
>
> The fact is we need God.
>
> We need Him for the simple reason that, as the prophet said, “it is
> not in man who walks to direct his own steps.”
>
> I need God to make me more than I would ever be otherwise. I need
> growth.
>
> I need God to save me from my natural self-centeredness. I need love..
>
> I need God to take care of friends and loved ones with real needs who
> are outside my ability to help. I need prayer.
>
> I need God to guide me in decisions since I do not know what tomorrow
> holds and thus what to do with today’s opportunities. I need wisdom.
>
> All by myself, I make a pretty small (and miserable) package.
>
> Thank God, I am not alone here on this small planet. The living God
> has singled this one out and has dwelled among us and made it possible
> for us to live on a higher plane here and with Him in Heaven forever.
>
> I need God to get me to Heaven.
>
> And because I need God, He sent Jesus.
>
> I could not be an atheist on my worst day. God has done far too much
> for me to be so ungrateful."
>
> http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/joe-mckeever/why-i-don-t-believe-in-at...
George Carlin Religion is bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjVLJKR6g7U
>
> "Nowhere does the Bible try to prove the existence of God. He is.
> Period.
>
> Deal with it, earthlings.
>
> Humanistic evangelists and atheistic peddlers are sure that we
> mindless theists have never considered the superior evidence for the
> positions they hold. Surely, if we did, they think, we would renounce
> the church and join them.
>
> Once again, believers are lumped together by those who “just don’t
> get it” as the terminally naive, the hopelessly hopeful, the
> unthinking uneducated and the irrationally illiterate.
>
> Most of the solid believers I know have considered atheism at one time
> or other. I did, while in college. This is not to say I joined the
> humanist society of Birmingham or majored in skepticism at Birmingham-
> Southern. But I read some of the stuff, talked to a few of the people,
> thought about the ramifications of it all, and made my choice to take
> my stand with believers.
>
> I’ve never regretted it.
>
> Here’s why.
>
> 1) As a rule, atheists tend to be a pretty miserable lot, while the
> best Christians I know are also the most put-together, positive, and
> effective people in the room.
>
> I heard someone say once, “The devil has no godly old people.” Indeed.
> We could add that the Lord also seems to have all the best-mannered,
> generous-hearted, goal-oriented achievers. If you look at the product
> of atheism and Christianity, there is no contest.
>
> 2) Since faith is required for either position, choosing to believe
> this amazing universe came together by chance and will go out the same
> way requires far more faith than this Alabama farm boy can muster. As
> has been said in the book by this title, “I don’t have faith enough to
> be an atheist.”
>
> 3) While it’s true a large portion of Christians have probably not
> investigated various apologetic aspects–evidence for the resurrection,
> the historicity of Jesus, the integrity of Scriptures– a great many
> have. I sat in the room with Dr. Carl F. H. Henry in the summer of
> 1978 as he said to some of us, “Christianity is the only world
> religion that has come through the scientific revolution and emerged
> intact.” Some of the others are fighting tooth and claw to keep
> modern technology from taking a look at their authoritative writings.
>
> 4) I do like the old line of reasoning that goes: “If the atheist is
> true and after death, we all disappear into nothingness, then as a
> Christian I have lost nothing. But if Jesus Christ is true and after
> death life just begins to get interesting, then the atheist is in a
> lot of trouble.” What about that can they not see?
>
> 5) If we know people by their fruits, then philosophies should
> identify themselves the same way. So, does anyone know any charitable
> ministry ever started by the atheists? Show me one and I can show you
> a hundred hospitals and colleges, children’s homes and crisis centers
> begun by Christ-followers.
>
> 6) There are the miracles, such as the existence of Holy Scriptures
> (the uniformity of them, the prophecies, the clarity, and a thousand
> other aspects), the existence of the Man of Galilee (His birth, life,
> death, and resurrection; His teachings and promises, etc), the
> existence of the Church (so flawed, without its divine nature, surely
> it would have vanished long ago), and the existence of honest inquiry
> among believers (a sure sign, if you ask me, that God’s people are
> into Truth and nothing else).
>
> 7) My testimony–and yours–on the power of Jesus Christ who changed our
> lives. And, as C. S. Lewis pointed out, if a skeptic scoffs that my
> life is so far inferior to what a true Christian should look like, I
> do not argue with that, but reply that my life is still so far beyond
> what it would have been without Christ.
>
> The fact is we need God.
>
> We need Him for the simple reason that, as the prophet said, “it is
> not in man who walks to direct his own steps.”
>
> I need God to make me more than I would ever be otherwise. I need
> growth.
>
> I need God to save me from my natural self-centeredness. I need love..
>
> I need God to take care of friends and loved ones with real needs who
> are outside my ability to help. I need prayer.
>
> I need God to guide me in decisions since I do not know what tomorrow
> holds and thus what to do with today’s opportunities. I need wisdom.
>
> All by myself, I make a pretty small (and miserable) package.
>
> Thank God, I am not alone here on this small planet. The living God
> has singled this one out and has dwelled among us and made it possible
> for us to live on a higher plane here and with Him in Heaven forever.
>
> I need God to get me to Heaven.
>
> And because I need God, He sent Jesus.
>
> I could not be an atheist on my worst day. God has done far too much
> for me to be so ungrateful."
>
> http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/joe-mckeever/why-i-don-t-believe-in-at...
George Carlin Religion is bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjVLJKR6g7U
harry k
May 29, 2013, 1:18:50 AM5/29/13
to
feed me religious nonsense.
Harry K
harry k
May 29, 2013, 1:22:31 AM5/29/13
to
him so he doesn't have to work ofr it. Still operable today by the
priests.
>
> > >> Do you have any examples of _ANY_ explanation that religion came up
> > >> with wot explain a natural fact?
>
> > >Explaining nature is one of the purposes of all religions, including
> > >Atheism, your question evokes thousands of answers. The West Coast
> > >Haidas had hundreds of explanations for natural facts, all now classed
> > >as "Raven" stories.
>
> > You seem to have no idea what words like "science", "explain", "nature",
> > "atheism", or "purpose" mean.
>
> You seem to think you are totally right and I am totally wrong. Make
> sure all the feathers on your headdress are securely fastened.
>
> TCross
think and realize wheich of the two, science or religion, has the
correct explanation for facts of nature. Clue: the sun never stopped
as in that fable and science can (and has) explained why it was
impossible. Just one example
Harry K
harry k
May 29, 2013, 1:23:45 AM5/29/13
to
can find flourishing examples of of communist nations.
Harry K
harry k
May 29, 2013, 1:24:34 AM5/29/13
to
On May 28, 12:16 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
have to guess - Hitler.
Harry K
jope
May 29, 2013, 2:21:55 AM5/29/13
to
The problem here ,has to do with the atheist motto:
"I may not know the answer,but I KNOW that there is a simple natural
explanation for it."
That attitude, is what I reffered to as a firewall against the
truth.Without it ,you are no longer an atheist.
August Rode
May 29, 2013, 8:25:38 AM5/29/13
to
On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:21:55 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
> On May 28, 7:51 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:30:27 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > > On May 28, 11:52 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > What is needed here is the ability to let the facts lead you wherever
> > > they may, and not build a firewall against the truth.
> >
> > I agree. How shall we go about determining what is factual and what is not?
>
> Verified eyewitness testimonies for starters
Fine. How should eyewitness testimonies be verified?
> On May 28, 7:51 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:30:27 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > > On May 28, 11:52 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > What is needed here is the ability to let the facts lead you wherever
> > > they may, and not build a firewall against the truth.
> >
> > I agree. How shall we go about determining what is factual and what is not?
>
> Verified eyewitness testimonies for starters
<bigotry snipped>
August Rode
May 29, 2013, 8:25:53 AM5/29/13
to
On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:21:55 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
> On May 28, 7:51 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:30:27 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > > On May 28, 11:52 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > What is needed here is the ability to let the facts lead you wherever
> > > they may, and not build a firewall against the truth.
> >
> > I agree. How shall we go about determining what is factual and what is not?
>
> Verified eyewitness testimonies for starters
> > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:30:27 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> > > On May 28, 11:52 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > What is needed here is the ability to let the facts lead you wherever
> > > they may, and not build a firewall against the truth.
> >
> > I agree. How shall we go about determining what is factual and what is not?
>
> Verified eyewitness testimonies for starters
Free Lunch
May 29, 2013, 10:25:29 AM5/29/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 23:21:55 -0700 (PDT), jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:
>On May 28, 7:51 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:30:27 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>> > On May 28, 11:52 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > What is needed here is the ability to let the facts lead you wherever
>> > they may, and not build a firewall against the truth.
>>
>> I agree. How shall we go about determining what is factual and what is not?
>
>Verified eyewitness testimonies for starters
We already know that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, so the only way
to verify it is with physical evidence.
>The problem here ,has to do with the atheist motto:
>"I may not know the answer,but I KNOW that there is a simple natural
>explanation for it."
>That attitude, is what I reffered to as a firewall against the
>truth.Without it ,you are no longer an atheist.
Facts are facts. If your "truth" is inconsistent with the facts, your
"truth" is false.
in alt.talk.creationism:
>On May 28, 7:51 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:30:27 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>> > On May 28, 11:52 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > What is needed here is the ability to let the facts lead you wherever
>> > they may, and not build a firewall against the truth.
>>
>> I agree. How shall we go about determining what is factual and what is not?
>
>Verified eyewitness testimonies for starters
to verify it is with physical evidence.
>The problem here ,has to do with the atheist motto:
>"I may not know the answer,but I KNOW that there is a simple natural
>explanation for it."
>That attitude, is what I reffered to as a firewall against the
>truth.Without it ,you are no longer an atheist.
"truth" is false.
Terry Cross
May 29, 2013, 2:53:23 PM5/29/13
to
> > > >> Do you have any examples of _ANY_ explanation that religion came up
> > > >> with wot explain a natural fact?
>
> > > >Explaining nature is one of the purposes of all religions, including
> > > >Atheism, your question evokes thousands of answers. The West Coast
> > > >Haidas had hundreds of explanations for natural facts, all now classed
> > > >as "Raven" stories.
>
> > > You seem to have no idea what words like "science", "explain", "nature",
> > > "atheism", or "purpose" mean.
>
> > You seem to think you are totally right and I am totally wrong. Make
> > sure all the feathers on your headdress are securely fastened.
>
> > TCross
>
> Doesn't need feathers or a headdress, only the ability to actually
> think and realize wheich of the two, science or religion, has the
> correct explanation for facts of nature. Clue: the sun never stopped
> as in that fable and science can (and has) explained why it was
> impossible. Just one example
you find in the Jewish Torah. Is there a reason you pick that source
above all others?
TCross
Terry Cross
May 29, 2013, 2:54:56 PM5/29/13
to
explanations is not a valid scientific purpose.
TCross
Terry Cross
May 29, 2013, 2:57:43 PM5/29/13
to
TCross
August Rode
May 29, 2013, 3:03:04 PM5/29/13
to
On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:54:56 PM UTC-4, Terry Cross wrote:
> On May 28, 10:18 pm, harry k <turn...@q.com> wrote:
<snip>
> On May 28, 10:18 pm, harry k <turn...@q.com> wrote:
> > I asked for an example of religion explaining a natural FACT and you
> > feed me religious nonsense.
>
> As I told you, explanations are a dime a dozen. Providing more
> explanations is not a valid scientific purpose.
"In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory>
Looks to me like the business of science is *precisely* to provide explanations. Perhaps by "explanation", you mean "wild-assed guess".
Free Lunch
May 29, 2013, 4:10:26 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 11:57:43 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
You repeat many falsehoods.
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Terry Cross
May 29, 2013, 6:17:46 PM5/29/13
to
On May 29, 1:10 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 11:57:43 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 11:57:43 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
least 30 million Ukrainians. These figures are not normally thought
to be falsehoods.
TCross
Free Lunch
May 29, 2013, 7:06:33 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
I am not calling the estimates of deaths falsehoods. I am calling your
fraudulent attempt to blame atheism for it a falsehood.
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
fraudulent attempt to blame atheism for it a falsehood.
Terry Cross
May 29, 2013, 7:08:15 PM5/29/13
to
On May 29, 4:06 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
had no problem with that.
TCross
Free Lunch
May 29, 2013, 7:31:39 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Had you said "the same" I would not have had much problem, but Hitler
was quite cheerful in his use of God and Christianity throughout his
career, including his justification for the Holocaust. Atheism was not a
core part of the murders orchestrated by Stalin or Pol Pot.
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
was quite cheerful in his use of God and Christianity throughout his
career, including his justification for the Holocaust. Atheism was not a
core part of the murders orchestrated by Stalin or Pol Pot.
Terry Cross
May 29, 2013, 8:03:25 PM5/29/13
to
On May 29, 4:31 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
murders. "Throughout his career" -- yup, yup, that fits for the "the
same" that you would have accepted.
But Karl Marx said Atheism was essential to Communism, indispensable
-- Hitler never said Christianity was indispensable to Fascism. And
all Stalin's and Pol Pot's killings were in the service of the
Communist State, of which Atheism was an "essential" and
"indispensable" part.
TCross
Free Lunch
May 29, 2013, 8:06:22 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 17:03:25 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Be serious. You clearly know nothing about Marx. All you have is the
evil done in his name by people like Stalin or Pol Pot.
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
evil done in his name by people like Stalin or Pol Pot.
Jope
May 30, 2013, 12:22:52 AM5/30/13
to
On May 29, 7:31 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
people — both the Bavarian Catholics and the Prussian Lutherans — and
to secure this he occasionally used rhetoric such as "I am doing the
Lord's work." To claim that this rhetoric makes Hitler a Christian is
to confuse political opportunism with personal conviction. Hitler
himself says in Mein Kampf that his public statements should be
understood as propaganda that bears no relation to the truth but is
designed to sway the masses.
The Nazi idea of an Aryan Christ who uses the sword to cleanse the
earth of the Jews — what historians call "Aryan Christianity" — was
obviously a radical departure from the traditional Christian
understanding and was condemned as such by Pope Pius XI at the time.
Moreover, Hitler's anti-Semitism was not religious, it was racial.
Jews were targeted not because of their religion — indeed many German
Jews were completely secular in their way of life — but because of
their racial identity. This was an ethnic and not a religious
designation. Hitler's anti-Semitism was secular.
Hitler's Table Talk, a revealing collection of the Fuhrer's private
opinions, assembled by a close aide during the war years, shows Hitler
to be rabidly anti-religious. He called Christianity one of the great
"scourges" of history, and said of the Germans, "Let's be the only
people who are immunized against this disease." He promised that
"through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity." In
fact, he blamed the Jews for inventing Christianity. He also condemned
Christianity for its opposition to evolution.
Hitler reserved special scorn for the Christian values of equality and
compassion, which he identified with weakness. Hitler's leading
advisers like Goebbels, Himmler, Heydrich and Bormann were atheists
who hated religion and sought to eradicate its influence in Germany."
bil...@microsoft.com
May 30, 2013, 7:31:27 AM5/30/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 29, 4:06�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 29, 4:06�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> I am not calling the estimates of deaths falsehoods. I am calling your
>> fraudulent attempt to blame atheism for it a falsehood.
>
>Makes much more sense than blaming Christianity for Hitler, and you
>had no problem with that.
>
>TCross
noone is blaming christianity for hitler. Although I would place a bit
>> fraudulent attempt to blame atheism for it a falsehood.
>
>Makes much more sense than blaming Christianity for Hitler, and you
>had no problem with that.
>
>TCross
of blame <but not all> on the fact that there is an idea that there is
one true god, and that god expects everyone to bow down and worship
it. Or at least the fact that humans think that people are supossed to
bow down and worship it. Oh wait we are talking aout christianity.
Sorry I mean the multiple gods expect to be worshiped.
bil...@microsoft.com
May 30, 2013, 7:33:43 AM5/30/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:31:39 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
the ukrane may rise up and declare independance from the ussr
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
><tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>On May 29, 4:06 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>>
>On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
><tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>On May 29, 4:06 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>>
>>> >Pol Pot killed somewhere between 6 and 15 million. Stalin killed at
>>> >least 30 million Ukrainians. These figures are not normally thought
>>> >to be falsehoods.
>>>
>>> I am not calling the estimates of deaths falsehoods. I am calling your
>>> fraudulent attempt to blame atheism for it a falsehood.
>>
>>Makes much more sense than blaming Christianity for Hitler, and you
>>had no problem with that.
>
>Had you said "the same" I would not have had much problem, but Hitler
>was quite cheerful in his use of God and Christianity throughout his
>career, including his justification for the Holocaust. Atheism was not a
>core part of the murders orchestrated by Stalin or Pol Pot.
this is true the reason stalin did the killing was because he thought
>>> >least 30 million Ukrainians. These figures are not normally thought
>>> >to be falsehoods.
>>>
>>> I am not calling the estimates of deaths falsehoods. I am calling your
>>> fraudulent attempt to blame atheism for it a falsehood.
>>
>>Makes much more sense than blaming Christianity for Hitler, and you
>>had no problem with that.
>
>Had you said "the same" I would not have had much problem, but Hitler
>was quite cheerful in his use of God and Christianity throughout his
>career, including his justification for the Holocaust. Atheism was not a
>core part of the murders orchestrated by Stalin or Pol Pot.
the ukrane may rise up and declare independance from the ussr
August Rode
May 30, 2013, 10:22:39 AM5/30/13
to
Terry Cross
May 30, 2013, 1:49:31 PM5/30/13
to
On May 30, 4:33 am, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:31:39 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> ><tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:31:39 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >>On May 29, 4:06 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> >>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >>> >Pol Pot killed somewhere between 6 and 15 million. Stalin killed at
> >>> >least 30 million Ukrainians. These figures are not normally thought
> >>> >to be falsehoods.
>
> >>> I am not calling the estimates of deaths falsehoods. I am calling your
> >>> fraudulent attempt to blame atheism for it a falsehood.
>
> >>Makes much more sense than blaming Christianity for Hitler, and you
> >>had no problem with that.
>
> >Had you said "the same" I would not have had much problem, but Hitler
> >was quite cheerful in his use of God and Christianity throughout his
> >career, including his justification for the Holocaust. Atheism was not a
> >core part of the murders orchestrated by Stalin or Pol Pot.
>
> this is true the reason stalin did the killing was because he thought
> the ukrane may rise up and declare independance from the ussr
Should we consider this to be your history Midrash? The Ukraine had
> >>On May 29, 4:06 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> >>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >>> >Pol Pot killed somewhere between 6 and 15 million. Stalin killed at
> >>> >least 30 million Ukrainians. These figures are not normally thought
> >>> >to be falsehoods.
>
> >>> I am not calling the estimates of deaths falsehoods. I am calling your
> >>> fraudulent attempt to blame atheism for it a falsehood.
>
> >>Makes much more sense than blaming Christianity for Hitler, and you
> >>had no problem with that.
>
> >Had you said "the same" I would not have had much problem, but Hitler
> >was quite cheerful in his use of God and Christianity throughout his
> >career, including his justification for the Holocaust. Atheism was not a
> >core part of the murders orchestrated by Stalin or Pol Pot.
>
> this is true the reason stalin did the killing was because he thought
> the ukrane may rise up and declare independance from the ussr
no army under its own direction, so it is no wonder you don't quote a
source.
TCross
Terry Cross
May 30, 2013, 1:54:15 PM5/30/13
to
On May 30, 4:31 am, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 29, 4:06 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >> I am not calling the estimates of deaths falsehoods. I am calling your
> >> fraudulent attempt to blame atheism for it a falsehood.
>
> >Makes much more sense than blaming Christianity for Hitler, and you
> >had no problem with that.
>
> >TCross
>
> noone is blaming christianity for hitler.
Harry K is no one?
> >On May 29, 4:06 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >> I am not calling the estimates of deaths falsehoods. I am calling your
> >> fraudulent attempt to blame atheism for it a falsehood.
>
> >Makes much more sense than blaming Christianity for Hitler, and you
> >had no problem with that.
>
> >TCross
>
> noone is blaming christianity for hitler.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On May 28, 10:24 pm, harry k <turn...@q.com> wrote:
And don't for get what a good christian did in WWII. So you don't
have to guess - Hitler.
Harry K
And don't for get what a good christian did in WWII. So you don't
have to guess - Hitler.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Although I would place a bit
> of blame <but not all> on the fact that there is an idea that there is
> one true god, and that god expects everyone to bow down and worship
> it.
invention that God, you can blame the Jews.
> Or at least the fact that humans think that people are supossed to
> bow down and worship it. Oh wait we are talking aout christianity.
> Sorry I mean the multiple gods expect to be worshiped.
believe in a good god called God, and a bad god called Satan, they are
all polytheistic.
TCross
Jope
May 30, 2013, 2:36:59 PM5/30/13
to
To tell you the truth ,I am rather curious about the atheistic
standards for establishing the veracity of a fact.
bil...@microsoft.com
May 30, 2013, 2:54:44 PM5/30/13
to
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:54:15 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 30, 4:31�am, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 29, 4:06 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >> I am not calling the estimates of deaths falsehoods. I am calling your
>> >> fraudulent attempt to blame atheism for it a falsehood.
>>
>> >Makes much more sense than blaming Christianity for Hitler, and you
>> >had no problem with that.
>>
>> >TCross
>>
>> noone is blaming christianity for hitler.
>
>Harry K is no one?
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>On May 28, 10:24 pm, harry k <turn...@q.com> wrote:
>And don't for get what a good christian did in WWII. So you don't
>have to guess - Hitler.
You are seeing shit that is not there.Christianity did not create
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 30, 4:31�am, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 29, 4:06 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >> I am not calling the estimates of deaths falsehoods. I am calling your
>> >> fraudulent attempt to blame atheism for it a falsehood.
>>
>> >Makes much more sense than blaming Christianity for Hitler, and you
>> >had no problem with that.
>>
>> >TCross
>>
>> noone is blaming christianity for hitler.
>
>Harry K is no one?
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>On May 28, 10:24 pm, harry k <turn...@q.com> wrote:
>And don't for get what a good christian did in WWII. So you don't
>have to guess - Hitler.
hitler it just gave him a good excuse he never said that christianity
created hitler he just said he was a good christian is all. Dude you
seriously have to quit nit picking it makes your side of the argument
weaker everytime you do that
>
>> Although I would place a bit
>> of blame <but not all> on the fact that there is an idea that there is
>> one true god, and that god expects everyone to bow down and worship
>> it.
>
>That IS the Jewish invention. So if you must blame someone for
>invention that God, you can blame the Jews.
actually the concept of a god was aroundf LOOONG before the jews
>> Although I would place a bit
>> of blame <but not all> on the fact that there is an idea that there is
>> one true god, and that god expects everyone to bow down and worship
>> it.
>
>That IS the Jewish invention. So if you must blame someone for
>invention that God, you can blame the Jews.
>
>> Or at least the fact that humans think that people are supossed to
>> bow down and worship it. Oh wait we are talking aout christianity.
>> Sorry I mean the multiple gods expect to be worshiped.
>
>Since all three religions -- Judaism, Islam, and Christianity --
>believe in a good god called God, and a bad god called Satan, they are
>all polytheistic.
though there is nothing original about it. and then your second god
jesus which was created by christianity. so you got your OG and your
JC and the devil and all of the multitudes of demigods <angels and
deamons>
>
>TCross
Free Lunch
May 30, 2013, 3:14:18 PM5/30/13
to
On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:36:59 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:
>On May 30, 10:22 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 8:25:38 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:21:55 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
>> > > On May 28, 7:51 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:30:27 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>> > > > > On May 28, 11:52 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > <snip>
>>
>> > > > > What is needed here is the ability to let the facts lead you wherever
>> > > > > they may, and not build a firewall against the truth.
>>
>> > > > I agree. How shall we go about determining what is factual and what is not?
>>
>> > > Verified eyewitness testimonies for starters
>>
>> > Fine. How should eyewitness testimonies be verified?
>>
>> Jope? Are you still considering the question? I did not ask it frivolously.
>> How should eyewitness testimonies be verified?
>I this point,you would have to define your own requirements.
The law actually has defined it and shown when it will allow eyewitness
testimony.
>To tell you the truth ,I am rather curious about the atheistic
>standards for establishing the veracity of a fact.
It's silly for you to imply that there are any such things as "atheistic
standards".
in alt.talk.creationism:
>On May 30, 10:22 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 8:25:38 AM UTC-4, August Rode wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:21:55 AM UTC-4, jope wrote:
>> > > On May 28, 7:51 pm, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:30:27 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
>> > > > > On May 28, 11:52 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > <snip>
>>
>> > > > > What is needed here is the ability to let the facts lead you wherever
>> > > > > they may, and not build a firewall against the truth.
>>
>> > > > I agree. How shall we go about determining what is factual and what is not?
>>
>> > > Verified eyewitness testimonies for starters
>>
>> > Fine. How should eyewitness testimonies be verified?
>>
>> Jope? Are you still considering the question? I did not ask it frivolously.
>> How should eyewitness testimonies be verified?
>I this point,you would have to define your own requirements.
testimony.
>To tell you the truth ,I am rather curious about the atheistic
>standards for establishing the veracity of a fact.
standards".
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages