The Bible causes atheists all kinds of trouble (since they just can't believe God exists).
John P. Boatwright
zoe wilfong wrote:
> Come on; the bible says that a third of the stars of heaven will
> fall *to earth.*
Morning stars were described as angels in Job.
"Fall" can mean to "descend" from a higher place
to a lower.
So....
After the tribulation of those days, 1/3
of the angels will descend from heaven and...
... the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of
man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes
of the earth mourn, and they shall see the
Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with
power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound
of a trumpet, and they shall gather together
his elect from the four winds, from one end of
heaven to the other.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Cheerful Pickle
"John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>zoe wilfong wrote:
>
>> Come on; the bible says that a third of the stars of heaven will
>> fall *to earth.*
>
>Morning stars were described as angels in Job.
>
>"Fall" can mean to "descend" from a higher place
>to a lower.
>
>So....
>
First of all, every one knows that in ancient times the stars and
planets were considered messengers of good or of ill. To say that
stars were described as angels in Job overlooks the fact that the
Hebrew wrod generally transliterated angel is best translated
messenger.
Additionally, the only reference in Job to "morning stars" does not
identify them as angels. Instead, it reads, "When the morning stars
sang together, and all the sons of G-d shouted for joy?" (Job
38:7,KJV). With the context speaking of the creation of the earth,
there is no reason to interpre this expression as poetry (which it is)
referring to the very stars that looked down on the earth (if you
will) as it was being created.
(The second half of the verse speaks of "sons of G-d" putting the lie
to the notion that any man can be the only son of G-d.)
Actually, the book of Revelation does not speak of a third of the
stars as "falling" to earth but as being swept to earth by the tail of
some huge monster in the sky. "And his tail drew the third part of
the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon
stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour
her child as soon as it was born" (Rev 12:4,KJV). "Casting down"
implies some force, not just descending. The whole story, in context,
is obviously a fantasy based on a pre-scientific view of the cosmos
with rich imagery from pagan mythology. To take this passage as
having any credibility at all is patently absurd. Back then they saw
meteors (which they thought were falling stars) falling to earth with
no consequence, so they would no doubt think of even a third of the
stars as falling to earth as of having no real consequence. Even one
star just nearly missing the earth would be devastating. The planet
would be fried to a crisp by an average star missing the earth by a
million miles. A third of the stars ... well you can figure that one.
Shalom.
****************
Down with spammer's e-mail address stealing robots!!!!!
If you wish to contact me for non-spamming purposes,
delete the ">.no.spam" from the domain name.
The Cheerful Pickle
dsg5
Interesting subject . . .
One of the reasons I'm an atheist is because I read the Bible. It's just
too weird . . . no way that book could be anything but a work of fiction .
.
--dsg
El Haqq The Truth
M
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> zoe wilfong wrote:
>
> > Come on; the bible says that a third of the stars of heaven will
> > fall *to earth.*
>
> Morning stars were described as angels in Job.
>
> "Fall" can mean to "descend" from a higher place
> to a lower.
>
> So....
>
> After the tribulation of those days, 1/3
> of the angels will descend from heaven and...
>
> ... the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
> 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of
> man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes
> of the earth mourn, and they shall see the
> Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with
> power and great glory.
> 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound
> of a trumpet, and they shall gather together
> his elect from the four winds, from one end of
> heaven to the other.
>
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>
>
el haqq comments;
you last sentence signifies what? This is why people rag on
christians so much. they go into a trance and cannot answer questions
without reverting to a bible spouting machine. how do you explain the
bible to one who does not understan? you say well you will understand
it when the spirit reveals. have you ever listened to yourself you are
not making sense. people are no ridiculing you because you believe in
something, they ridicule you because you have so many explanations and
hypothesis for what you believe and some of them can be classified as
delusions. a person can ask you how did elijah after his ascension write
a letter to the king and warn him of his death (this is in the bible by
the way) and a christian will not even try to think how this could be
they would just say. well god is able or they ways of god are far beyond
man. this is the reason people are abandoning religion at alarming rates
and seeking god for themselves without the trappings of the established
religious system. just think and please don't respond in scripture talk
like a person with a brain.
*
In <6erae6$l...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
cheerfu...@cheerful.no.spam.com (Cheerful Pickle) writes:
>"John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>>zoe wilfong wrote:
>>
>>> Come on; the bible says that a third of the stars of heaven will
>>> fall *to earth.*
>>
>>Morning stars were described as angels in Job.
>>
>>"Fall" can mean to "descend" from a higher place
>>to a lower.
>>
>>So....
>>
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
John P. Boatwright
Cheerful Pickle wrote:
> "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >zoe wilfong wrote:
> >> Come on; the bible says that a third of the stars of heaven will
> >> fall *to earth.*
> >Morning stars were described as angels in Job.
> >"Fall" can mean to "descend" from a higher place
> >to a lower.
> >So....
> First of all, every one knows that in ancient times the stars and
> planets were considered messengers of good or of ill.
* The bible specifically calls Jesus the bright and morning
star.
* The bible specifically calls Lucifer the son of the
morning.
* The bible specifically says all the morning stars and
sons of God sang together (angels singing, actual stars
can't sing real well).
It's pretty clear that angels and the like can also be
called "morning stars" (or just stars) and "sons of God".
> To say that stars were described as angels in Job
> overlooks the fact that the Hebrew wrod generally
> transliterated angel is best translated messenger.
Not always.
Jesus himself said that ANGELS would gather his elect.
That's not being a messenger now is it?
And what about the 2 angels rolling away the stone?
And who could forget:
2Sa 24:15 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel
from the morning even to the time appointed:
and there died of the people from Dan even
to Beersheba seventy thousand men.
16 And when the angel stretched out his hand
upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented
him of the evil, and said to the angel that
destroyed the people, It is enough: stay
now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD
was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.
Funny how angels don't always do "messaging" as in this
case, they are DESTROYING on command from God.
> Additionally, the only reference in Job to "morning stars"
> does not identify them as angels. Instead, it reads,
> "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons
> of G-d shouted for joy?" (Job 38:7,KJV). With the context
> speaking of the creation of the earth, there is no reason
> to interpre this expression as poetry (which it is) referring
> to the very stars that looked down on the earth (if you
> will) as it was being created.
See above. Jesus was called both the "bright and morning star"
and the "son of God". Lucifer was called "son of the morning"
and he was an angel. Likewise, Job shows that God himself
called the >>> angels <<< "morning stars" and "sons of God".
Much of the bible is like that, using multiple names,
for various items.
It's like saying "two", "2", "dual", "pair", "double", 6/3, etc...
For instance, Jesus is:
* The son of God.
* The son of man.
* The arm of God.
* God's hand.
* The lamb of God.
* The christ.
* The savior.
* The only begotten son of God.
* The resurrection and the life.
* etc...
Anyway, it's pretty clear what Jesus is saying, that
after the tribulation, 1/3 of the angels will descend
from heaven. Jesus will then appear with great power and
glory, then "he shall send his angels to gather the elect".
> (The second half of the verse speaks of "sons of G-d"
> putting the lie to the notion that any man can be the
> only son of G-d.)
It says only BEGOTTEN son of God.
Jesus was born of a virgin (Mary) hence he's also the
"son of man".
> Actually, the book of Revelation does not speak of a third
> of the stars as "falling" to earth but as being swept to
> earth by the tail of some huge monster in the sky. "And
> his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and
> did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before
> the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour
> her child as soon as it was born" (Rev 12:4,KJV).
> "Casting down" implies some force, not just descending.
ha ha ha...
Again, you're supporting Jesus's statement, as the dragon "Satan"
will "cast them" or scatter (see Strong's) his stars (angels)
to the earth from heaven.
It says specifically that Satan's angels would be with him:
Re 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent,
called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the
whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and
his angels were cast out with him.
That's the 1/3 angels that Jesus and Revelation are
talking about.
Overall, it says there's a war in heaven, Satan and his
camp are cast out to earth, then Jesus shows up and soon
after Jesus sends his angels to gather the elect.
Get it?
> The whole story, in context, is obviously a fantasy
> based on a pre-scientific view of the cosmos with rich
> imagery from pagan mythology. To take this passage as
> having any credibility at all is patently absurd.
You're missing a COMMON THEME.
Revelation REPEATS the context to CONFIRM what was just
said.
In the first pass, it says a dragon (Satan) gathers the
stars (angles) and casts them down to earth. The second
pass through it REPEATS and uses the actual names like
Satan and angels.
Your "poo poo"'ing the stuff into the "simplicity of some
mythology" has VOIDED you being able to see what they've
just told to you.
It's funny, you actually read the stuff, yet it blew right
by you.
Incredible.
John P. Boatwright
* wrote:
>
> In <6erae6$l...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
> cheerfu...@cheerful.no.spam.com (Cheerful Pickle) writes:
(snip)
> ===>EXCELLENT REPLY!
ha ha ha...
Ya, I guess you would think that beings how you keep gunging
Jesus dying on the cross.
Anyway, Revelation CONFIRMS the 1/3 angels cast down to
earth as being with Satan. TWO verse sets REPEATED one
after the other saying the SAME THING but using alternate
terms, and BOTH are confirming what Jesus told them
about 1/3 the stars (angels) falling (descending) to earth.
1. Dragon (Satan) brings 1/3 stars (angels) to earth
2. Satan and his angels are cast down to earth.
3. Jesus confirms it AGAIN in the earlier Gospels by
sayig 1/3 the stars (angels) would fall (descend).
Odd how all THREE look the same.
Heck, even in Revelation there's a connecting verse
that locks the dragon as being Satan.
Atheists just can't get it cuz they don't believe
God could be telling the truth in the bible.
Typical.
Cheerful Pickle
"John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>Atheists just can't get it cuz they don't believe
>God could be telling the truth in the bible.
>
I for one am not an atheist. G-d does tell the truth in the
Scriptures -- all thirty-nine books of them. The problem is not with
Scripture, it is with the Judeo-Greek mythology of the so-called New
Testament. (I stick with the OT, the Only Testament, that is). The
so-called NT is based on mythology pertaining to a purely mythological
figure that existed solely in a mythological world.
Rather than producing a 5000 line dissertation, let me refer you to an
excellent website.
http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/home.htm
I'm not sure of the religious background, if any, of the writer, but I
must say his thesis is convincing. i came to the same conclusion
independantly.
****************************************
Down with spammer's e-mail address stealing robots!!!!!
If you wish to contact me for non-spamming purposes,
delete the ">.no.spam" from the domain name.
Shalom, ya'all,
The Cheerful Pickle
Peter Kirby
Cheerful Pickle wrote:
>
> "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Atheists just can't get it cuz they don't believe
> >God could be telling the truth in the bible.
> >
>
> I for one am not an atheist. G-d does tell the truth in the
> Scriptures -- all thirty-nine books of them. The problem is not with
> Scripture, it is with the Judeo-Greek mythology of the so-called New
> Testament. (I stick with the OT, the Only Testament, that is). The
> so-called NT is based on mythology pertaining to a purely mythological
> figure that existed solely in a mythological world.
I'm curious about what non-Christian theists believe. Do you maintain that
there is more historical evidence for the existence of Moses or Abraham or
Adam? Why or why not?
> Rather than producing a 5000 line dissertation, let me refer you to an
> excellent website.
>
> http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/home.htm
>
> I'm not sure of the religious background, if any, of the writer, but I
> must say his thesis is convincing. i came to the same conclusion
> independantly.
I get the impression that he is a skeptic, due to his occasional comments on
religious myth in general.
I agree that this is an excellent website. Earl Doherty is a scholar of the
first rank, and his thesis is far more convincing than what Christians have
to say.
I happen to disagree with his conclusion (on historical grounds), but I think
it is reasonable to doubt whether there was a historical Jesus.
--
Peter Kirby <ki...@earthlink.net>
XTIANITY list owner, alt.atheism atheist #16
Visit my home page: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/
Greg Harvey
"John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> writes:
>
> And what about the 2 angels rolling away the stone?
Matthew 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake:
for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven,
and came and rolled back the stone from the door,
and sat upon it.
Those two angels? Or was it one schizophrenic angel?
(with many thanks to project gutenberg for providing this crud in
electronic form :P)
--
Greg Harvey, http://home.thezone.net/~gharvey
God doesn't exist, Jesus was Peter's bitch
Louann Miller
In article <35119B...@teleport.com>, sa...@teleport.com says...
>Anyway, Revelation CONFIRMS the 1/3 angels cast down to
>earth as being with Satan. TWO verse sets REPEATED one
>after the other saying the SAME THING but using alternate
>terms, and BOTH are confirming what Jesus told them
>about 1/3 the stars (angels) falling (descending) to earth.
>
>1. Dragon (Satan) brings 1/3 stars (angels) to earth
>2. Satan and his angels are cast down to earth.
>3. Jesus confirms it AGAIN in the earlier Gospels by
> sayig 1/3 the stars (angels) would fall (descend).
>
>Odd how all THREE look the same.
>
>Heck, even in Revelation there's a connecting verse
>that locks the dragon as being Satan.
>
>Atheists just can't get it cuz they don't believe
>God could be telling the truth in the bible.
>
>Typical.
>
>God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Oh, wow. Three parts of the same book agree with one another. I'm convinced.
*
In <6etsb2$lg2$2...@hermes.seas.smu.edu> lou...@mail.smu.edu (Louann
a moment, as the Christos cultists believe.
Dr. Monkeyspank
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> zoe wilfong wrote:
>
> > Come on; the bible says that a third of the stars of heaven will
> > fall *to earth.*
>
> Morning stars were described as angels in Job.
>
> "Fall" can mean to "descend" from a higher place
> to a lower.
Fall can mean descend. Cloud can mean nebula. Bird can mean fish. Day
can mean night. 2 can mean 7. Whatever it takes to plug up all the
holes in your sinking boat.
------------------- Dr. Monkey Spank -------------------
Director, Simian Disciplinary Systems Institute
"We never met a monkey we couldn't spank"
------- (remove "huhuh." for real email address) -------
Brant Watson
John P. Boatwright wrote:
> Cheerful Pickle wrote:
>
> > "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > >zoe wilfong wrote:
>
> > >> Come on; the bible says that a third of the stars of heaven will
> > >> fall *to earth.*
>
> > >Morning stars were described as angels in Job.
>
> > >"Fall" can mean to "descend" from a higher place
> > >to a lower.
>
> > >So....
>
> > First of all, every one knows that in ancient times the stars and
> > planets were considered messengers of good or of ill.
>
> * The bible specifically calls Jesus the bright and morning
> star.
> * The bible specifically calls Lucifer the son of the
> morning.
> * The bible specifically says all the morning stars and
> sons of God sang together (angels singing, actual stars
> can't sing real well).
>
The bible calls lots of things lots of things...enough so that you or
anyone else can play verbal Mr. Potatohead and piece it together to mean
anything you want it to.
Brant
<snip>
*
In <35136240...@erols.com> Brant Watson <bra...@erols.com>
writes:
>
>
>John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
>> Cheerful Pickle wrote:
>>
>> > "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >zoe wilfong wrote:
>>
>> > >> Come on; the bible says that a third of the stars of heaven
will
>> > >> fall *to earth.*
>>
>> > >Morning stars were described as angels in Job.
>>
>> > >"Fall" can mean to "descend" from a higher place
>> > >to a lower.
>>
>> > >So....
>>
>> > First of all, every one knows that in ancient times the stars and
>> > planets were considered messengers of good or of ill.
>>
>> * The bible specifically calls Jesus the bright and morning
>> star.
>> * The bible specifically calls Lucifer the son of the
>> morning.
>> * The bible specifically says all the morning stars and
>> sons of God sang together (angels singing, actual stars
>> can't sing real well).
>>
>
or
>anyone else can play verbal Mr. Potatohead and piece it together to
mean
>anything you want it to.
>
> Brant
>
><snip>
>
might as well take a few sentences out of several different books
collected in the Library of Congress, to support an argument. One book
does NOT define what another book's author meant, unless it is
specifically stated. The "Bible" says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Only certain
WRITERS whose works were included in the collection, made certain
statements. Honesty would dictate that you QUOTE THE WRITERS, not a
blanket statement that "the Bible says" this or that.
*
In <351302...@huhuh.hehe.com> "Dr. Monkeyspank"
<monke...@huhuh.hehe.com> writes:
>
>John P. Boatwright wrote:
>>
>> zoe wilfong wrote:
>>
>> > Come on; the bible says that a third of the stars of heaven will
>> > fall *to earth.*
>>
>> Morning stars were described as angels in Job.
>>
>> "Fall" can mean to "descend" from a higher place
>> to a lower.
>
Day
>can mean night. 2 can mean 7. Whatever it takes to plug up all the
>holes in your sinking boat.
>
two millennia that ONE=THREE and THREE=ONE!
John P. Boatwright
Dr. Monkeyspank wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > zoe wilfong wrote:
> > > Come on; the bible says that a third of the stars of heaven will
> > > fall *to earth.*
> > Morning stars were described as angels in Job.
> > "Fall" can mean to "descend" from a higher place
> > to a lower.
> Fall can mean descend.
Ya, given the Strongs definitions.
> Cloud can mean nebula. Bird can mean fish.
> Day can mean night. 2 can mean 7.
Are you mixing chemicals again?
> Whatever it takes to plug up all the
> holes in your sinking boat.
See the Strongs definitions for the usage.
(and you of all people "Monkey Strong")
The word given had several possible meanings, two of
which were "fall" and "descend from a higher place
to a lower".
No big deal.
John P. Boatwright
Greg Harvey wrote:
> "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> writes:
> > And what about the 2 angels rolling away the stone?
> Matthew 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake:
> for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven,
> and came and rolled back the stone from the door,
> and sat upon it.
> Those two angels? Or was it one schizophrenic angel?
Good point.
I remembered the stone rolling away but assumed it
was the same as the two angels that stood:
Joh 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the
one at the head, and the other at the feet,
where the body of Jesus had lain.
Ya, that't the passage, it shows the two angels
one at the head and one at the feet where the body
had lain.
Much better.
John P. Boatwright
El Haqq The Truth wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > zoe wilfong wrote:
> > > Come on; the bible says that a third of the stars of heaven will
> > > fall *to earth.*
> > Morning stars were described as angels in Job.
> > "Fall" can mean to "descend" from a higher place
> > to a lower.
> > So....
> > After the tribulation of those days, 1/3
> > of the angels will descend from heaven and...
> > ... the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
> > 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of
> > man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes
> > of the earth mourn, and they shall see the
> > Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with
> > power and great glory.
> > 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound
> > of a trumpet, and they shall gather together
> > his elect from the four winds, from one end of
> > heaven to the other.
> > God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
> el haqq comments;
> you last sentence signifies what?
The truth.
> This is why people rag on christians so much.
Sometimes.
> they go into a trance and cannot answer questions
> without reverting to a bible spouting machine. how
> do you explain the bible to one who does not understan?
Slowly.
But in a newsgroup setting, there's not much choice
about the level of the discussion.
> you say well you will understand it when the spirit
> reveals. have you ever listened to yourself you are
> not making sense.
The orginal Hebrew had various MEANINGS for the words
given. It's much like in English today, for instance:
===============================
two, 2, dual, double, pair, 6/3
===============================
All those mean roughly the same thing >>> TWO <<<.
You can also go the other way and say the word "saw", that
can mean "seeing something" or "a common tool to cut wood",
or even the last name of someone: Billy J. Saw
Same for the original scriptures in Hebrew.
So when looking at the "stars falling from heaven"
verses, you have to realize a couple of things were
occuring when the text was written and when it was
translated:
* The original speaker (Jesus) can call angels "stars"
as he did in calling himself the "bright morning star"
and God previously calling Lucifer the "son of the morning"
* Then later Jesus being called the son of God when in
Job those same "morning stars" and "sons of God" sang
for joy.
* Further, it was up to the translators to PICK what word
they felt best described for any word given that they
felt best described the context of the given sentence
they were translating.
So in the translation the sentence came out "stars falling
from heaven" when the best fit that matches the Revelation
REPEATED DISCUSSION of the same event, turns out to be
best described as "angels falling (descending, scattered) from
heaven to earth" as it's described in Revelation.
The problem was that the translators didn't think falling
stars would be any problem, so they gave it out as such.
But when reviewing the Revelation account, Revelation says
TWICE that the "dragon" (Satan) would gather 1/3 of the
angels and descend to earth (they were losing the
battle in heaven), then after the tribulation "of those days",
Jesus would then appear and call all his angels to gather
the elect.
In essence, Jesus agreed in the gospels with what he showed
John in Revelation.
Big surprize eh?
> people are no ridiculing you because you believe in
> something, they ridicule you because you have so many
> explanations and hypothesis for what you believe and
> some of them can be classified as delusions.
The context allows "angels descending from heaven" and
matches what Revelation described TWICE.
Jesus gave both the gospel account and the Revelation
account.
> a person can ask you how did elijah after his ascension
> write a letter to the king and warn him of his death
> (this is in the bible by the way) and a christian will
> not even try to think how this could be they would just
> say. well god is able or they ways of god are far beyond
> man.
Possibly his servant Elisha wrote it.
> this is the reason people are abandoning religion
> at alarming rates and seeking god for themselves without
> the trappings of the established religious system.
> just think and please don't respond in scripture talk
> like a person with a brain.
Ya right, same old "don't mention any bible verses".
Huh.
Greg Harvey
"John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> writes:
> Greg Harvey wrote:
>
> > "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> writes:
>
[snip of one angel account]
>
> Good point.
>
> I remembered the stone rolling away but assumed it
> was the same as the two angels that stood:
>
> Joh 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the
> one at the head, and the other at the feet,
> where the body of Jesus had lain.
>
> Ya, that't the passage, it shows the two angels
> one at the head and one at the feet where the body
> had lain.
>
> Much better.
>
Oh, I get it. The bible is only the passages you like. That certainly
makes it easy to ignore contradictions, doesn't it?
Does this method of belief require training, or can anyone just stick
their fingers in their ears and go "Nyah nyah nyah"?
spaceghosts
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
You can pay for a mans debt, but you can't make him
innocent by suffering in his place.. :-P
You presuppose that the Universe was made or had
a beginning.. That's a big assumption...
Barbara A. Meissner
Subject says it all.
bam
James Penrose
: >
: > And what about the 2 angels rolling away the stone?
: Matthew 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake:
: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven,
: and came and rolled back the stone from the door,
: and sat upon it.
: Those two angels? Or was it one schizophrenic angel?
: (with many thanks to project gutenberg for providing this crud in
: electronic form :P)
Don't forget, at least one more gospel had the stone already rolled
away. Not to mention at least three differeing stories as to who first
found the tomb.
*
In <jpenroseE...@netcom.com> jpen...@netcom.com (James Penrose)
writes:
===>The most credible story, actually the only one claiming to rely on
an eye witness account, is the one in the "John" Gospel. It hints at
the possibility that Jesus was rescued and nursed back from
near-death,perhaps from a coma, like the daughter of Jairus. The other
stories are just too muddled and fancyful. Obviously mixed with legends
and hearsay.
TIMOTHY GUEGUEN
spaceghosts (prosthetic...@wave.co.nz) wrote:
: > God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
But that is the assumption most scientists make, namely that the universe
began with the Big Bang circa 15 billion years ago.
tim gueguen 101867
Christopher A. Lee
That's not an assumption, it's a conclusion drawn from the observed
rate of expansion. And it's only an approximation plus or minus a
couple of billion.
Matthew J Wilson
ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (TIMOTHY GUEGUEN) writes:
>spaceghosts (prosthetic...@wave.co.nz) wrote:
>: > God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>: You can pay for a mans debt, but you can't make him
>: innocent by suffering in his place.. :-P
>: You presuppose that the Universe was made or had
>: a beginning.. That's a big assumption...
>But that is the assumption most scientists make, namely that the universe
>began with the Big Bang circa 15 billion years ago.
Yes, but in that case it's a *theory* (not an assumption) based on fairly
extensive evidence that the universe's age is within a given bracket,
which, at last count, I think, was between 12 and 18 billion years.
--
Matt.
Eric Williams @ PCB x5577
In article <351622...@wave.co.nz>, spaceghosts <prosthetic...@wave.co.nz> writes:
> > God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>
> You can pay for a mans debt, but you can't make him
> innocent by suffering in his place.. :-P
>
> You presuppose that the Universe was made or had
> a beginning.. That's a big assumption...
We are fairly sure it had a beginning. That has no relationship whatsoever
on whether it was manufactured ("made" being a rather vague term)
and who or what manufactured it (if anything).
--
eric_w...@mentorg.com
The preceding is *not* an official (or unofficial) public policy statement by
Mentor Graphics, Incorporated (my employer), or any of its representatives.
All spam mail to this address is archived. Consider yourselves warned.
*
In <6fejl8$jub$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au> zzmw...@fox.uq.net.au (Matthew J
Wilson) writes:
>
>ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (TIMOTHY GUEGUEN) writes:
>
>>spaceghosts (prosthetic...@wave.co.nz) wrote:
>
>>: You can pay for a mans debt, but you can't make him
>>: innocent by suffering in his place.. :-P
>
>>: You presuppose that the Universe was made or had
>>: a beginning.. That's a big assumption...
universe
>>began with the Big Bang circa 15 billion years ago.
>
>Yes, but in that case it's a *theory* (not an assumption) based on
fairly
>extensive evidence that the universe's age is within a given bracket,
>which, at last count, I think, was between 12 and 18 billion years.
>
fraction of the eternal and infinite Cosmic Totality.
julidan
James Penrose wrote:
>
> Greg Harvey (Greg....@thezone.net) wrote:
> : "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> writes:
>
> : >
> : > And what about the 2 angels rolling away the stone?
>
> : Matthew 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake:
> : for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven,
> : and came and rolled back the stone from the door,
> : and sat upon it.
>
> : Those two angels? Or was it one schizophrenic angel?
>
> : (with many thanks to project gutenberg for providing this crud in
> : electronic form :P)
>
> Don't forget, at least one more gospel had the stone already rolled
> away. Not to mention at least three differeing stories as to who first
> found the tomb.
(Homer Simpson's neighbor) once said: "I believe the Bible; even the
stuff that contradicts all the other stuff."(or something like that)
There's always some convoluted explanation for the discrepancies in
God's Word. I just think everyone was really scared of God and afraid
to point out that he needed the services of a good editor.
Ian Finnesey
TIMOTHY GUEGUEN (ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca) wrote:
: : You can pay for a mans debt, but you can't make him
: : innocent by suffering in his place.. :-P
: : You presuppose that the Universe was made or had
: : a beginning.. That's a big assumption...
: But that is the assumption most scientists make, namely that the universe
: began with the Big Bang circa 15 billion years ago.
: tim gueguen 101867
How many scientists can you name who insist there was nothing before that?
--
---
90 percent of a predator's attempts fail. Usually because the prey is
uncooperative.
73 percent of all statistics are made up.
Shane D. Killian
Ian Finnesey wrote:
>
> TIMOTHY GUEGUEN (ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca) wrote:
>
> : But that is the assumption most scientists make, namely that the universe
> : began with the Big Bang circa 15 billion years ago.
>
>
mean by "nothing."
"Nothing" usually implies that there is some kind of empty space for the
nonexistant nothing to not exist in. This is not the case.
There was no matter, energy, space, time, or anything else "before" the
big bang.
And since there was no time, even using the phrase "before the big bang"
is inadequate. There was no before, because there was no time!
At least, that's the theory.
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"If someone doesn't begin making sense around here,
I'm going to become most annoyed!"
--Delenn, Babylon 5: "Between the Darkness and the Light"
*
In <351E5C50...@vnet.net> "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net>
writes:
>Ian Finnesey wrote:
>>
>> TIMOTHY GUEGUEN (ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca) wrote:
>>
>> : But that is the assumption most scientists make, namely that the
universe
>> : began with the Big Bang circa 15 billion years ago.
>>
>> How many scientists can you name who insist there was nothing before
that?
>>
>That is a very interesting question, and it all boils down to what you
>mean by "nothing."
>
>"Nothing" usually implies that there is some kind of empty space for
the
>nonexistant nothing to not exist in. This is not the case.
>
>There was no matter, energy, space, time, or anything else "before"
the
>big bang.
>
>And since there was no time, even using the phrase "before the big
bang"
>is inadequate. There was no before, because there was no time!
>
>At least, that's the theory.
>
Matthew J Wilson
fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (Ian Finnesey) writes:
>TIMOTHY GUEGUEN (ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca) wrote:
>: spaceghosts (prosthetic...@wave.co.nz) wrote:
>: : > God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>: : You can pay for a mans debt, but you can't make him
>: : innocent by suffering in his place.. :-P
>: : You presuppose that the Universe was made or had
>: : a beginning.. That's a big assumption...
>: But that is the assumption most scientists make, namely that the universe
>: began with the Big Bang circa 15 billion years ago.
>How many scientists can you name who insist there was nothing before that?
That's not the point under discussion. How many scientists can you name
who would insist that *this* universe existed before that?
--
Matt.
Peter Kirby
* wrote:
>
> In <351E5C50...@vnet.net> "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net>
> writes:
> >
> >Ian Finnesey wrote:
> >>
> >> TIMOTHY GUEGUEN (ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca) wrote:
> >>
> universe
> >> : began with the Big Bang circa 15 billion years ago.
> >>
> >> How many scientists can you name who insist there was nothing before
> that?
> >>
> >mean by "nothing."
> >
> >"Nothing" usually implies that there is some kind of empty space for
> the
> >nonexistant nothing to not exist in. This is not the case.
> >
> >There was no matter, energy, space, time, or anything else "before"
> the
> >big bang.
> >
> >And since there was no time, even using the phrase "before the big
> bang"
> >is inadequate. There was no before, because there was no time!
> >
> >At least, that's the theory.
> >
> ===>That theory makes about as much sense as the Genesis stories.
Just like the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, huh?
--
Peter Kirby <ki...@earthlink.net>
XTIANITY list owner, alt.atheism atheist #16
Visit my home page: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/
John P. Boatwright
Shaney boy wrote:
> There was no matter, energy, space, time, or anything
> else "before" the big bang.
See, you're an atheist and NOT a christian.
God stated quite plainly that HE MADE HIS CREATION.
God existed BEFORE the stuff he made.
=============================================================
Stop the sham Shaney boy, admit to being the atheist you are.
=============================================================
You're also a confirmed RACIST in that you claimed Jesus
didn't look like a Jew as seen on the Shroud. That some
how a Jew looks odd in some way.
Tsk, tsk, tsk...
John P. Boatwright
* wrote:
> ===>The most credible story, actually the only one claiming to rely on
> an eye witness account, is the one in the "John" Gospel. It hints at
> the possibility that Jesus was rescued and nursed back from
> near-death,perhaps from a coma, like the daughter of Jairus. The other
> stories are just too muddled and fancyful. Obviously mixed with legends
> and hearsay.
With massive head injuries, internal bleeding from TWO beatings
and additional scourging (39 lashes with a rope with metal
balls attached, 40 lashes was considered death), nail holes
in arteries in the wrists and feet and a gaping hole that
you could fit your hand into in the side of his chest...
Odd, I don't see a guy living real long in that condition.
Seems the account says Thomas showed up a full >>> 10 DAYS <<<
after and Jesus asked him to put his HAND into his chest.
Either:
* Thomas was a surgeon and Jesus was in a present day hospital
somehow ACCIDENTALLY fabricated in 30 AD (freak photo analogy)
* or Jesus is the Son of God.
The second seems more probable.
Shane D. Killian
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Shaney boy wrote:
>
> > There was no matter, energy, space, time, or anything
> > else "before" the big bang.
>
> See, you're an atheist and NOT a christian.
>
More of your own delusional justifications for your weak faith, no
doubt.
Else, why would you resort to your unfounded name-calling? By calling me
an atheist, which I'm not, and a racist, which I;m not?
Methinks you'd better do a LOT of praying tonight.
John P. Boatwright
Shaney boy wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > Shaney boy wrote:
> > > There was no matter, energy, space, time, or anything
> > > else "before" the big bang.
> > See, you're an atheist and NOT a christian.
(notice here, Shaney boy snipped the reasons given for saying
such and then goes on to claim the statement is baseless)
> What???
(and tries to act surprized as well)
> Since when can you not be a Christian and study science, too?
You said "there was matter, energy, space, time, or ANYTHING
else "before" the big bang.
That says YOU believe God didn't exist before his
creation, hence your statement claims God didn't make
what he said he made.
It's obvious that you're an atheist.
> More of your own delusional justifications for your weak
> faith, no doubt.
Nope, YOUR own words convict you of atheism.
In fact, about every time a proof of God is shown, you
tend to balk and try to disprove God being right.
That's atheism in a nut shell.
> Else, why would you resort to your unfounded name-calling?
> By calling me an atheist,
You just proved such above in ONE sentence.
> which I'm not,
Are you denying you said the line above?
> and a racist, which I;m not?
Again, you said the man displayed by the image on the Shroud
of Turin just couldn't have been a Jew (like somehow you
can spot a Jew in some way, I can't tell the difference).
That's racist.
> Methinks you'd better do a LOT of praying tonight.
Ya right.
Odd how you snip out the stuff you don't want people to see.
Too bad it's SO OBVIOUS.
John P. Boatwright
* wrote:
> ===>We should be grateful that there are some EDUCATED, INTELLIGENT
> Christians who, like Shane and Bishop John Shelby Spong, tell it like
> it is and see the literature in the Bible as containing some valuable
> SPIRITUAL/ETHICAL messages but not scientifically reliable information.
That's why God had the Genesis account correctly given
to 208,000,000:1 odds of him being the source:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/genesis.htm
Oh ya, here's an EXACT quote from Shane Killian's previous post:
=====================================================
There was no matter, energy, space, time, or anything
else "before" the big bang.
-- Shane D. Killian, Mar 1998
=====================================================
Yet the bible clearly states that >>> God <<< was around
when he made his creation.
Shanes statement is typical of what an atheist would say.
Atheists are so easy to see through.
(wolves in sheeps clothing an all)
John P. Boatwright
John P. Boatwright wrote:
> * wrote:
> > ===>We should be grateful that there are some EDUCATED, INTELLIGENT
> > Christians who, like Shane and Bishop John Shelby Spong, tell it like
> > it is and see the literature in the Bible as containing some valuable
> > SPIRITUAL/ETHICAL messages but not scientifically reliable information.
> That's why God had the Genesis account correctly given
> to 208,000,000:1 odds of him being the source:
> http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/genesis.htm
Correct path
John P. Boatwright
* wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote
> <sa...@teleport.com> writes:
> >* wrote:
> >> ===>The most credible story, actually the only one claiming to rely on
> >> an eye witness account, is the one in the "John" Gospel. It hints at
> >> the possibility that Jesus was rescued and nursed back from
> >> near-death,perhaps from a coma, like the daughter of Jairus. The other
> >> stories are just too muddled and fancyful. Obviously mixed with legends
> >> and hearsay.
> >With massive head injuries, internal bleeding from TWO beatings
> >and additional scourging (39 lashes with a rope with metal
> >balls attached, 40 lashes was considered death), nail holes
> >in arteries in the wrists and feet and a gaping hole that
> >you could fit your hand into in the side of his chest...
> >Odd, I don't see a guy living real long in that condition.
Especially when the Romans considered 40 lashes alone
as being the same as DEATH.
> ===>Where in the world do you get that stupid idea of a "gaping hole"
Joh 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have
seen the Lord. But he said unto them,
=====================================================
Except I shall see in his hands the print of the
nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails,
and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
=====================================================
Thomas planely stated before seeing Jesus that he would ONLY
believe if he could put his finger into the hand holes and
his whole hand into Jesus's side.
He said it as plain as it could have been stated.
Then when Thomas was with Jesus:
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger,
and behold my hands;
(asks him to bring his finger to the holes in his hands)
and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into
my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Yep, he then asks for his entire hand and has him thrust
his hand into his side.
> when the scenario describes a SCRATCH or PRICK to the SIDE of Jesus?
> Even "Bring your hand and put your finger" does not imply any "gaping
> hole".
He asked TWICE
* Once for his finger to put in the holes in his hands.
* Once for his hand to put into the hole in his side.
Get over it.
> Finally, that Jesus you imagine, full of PHYSICAL wounds and
> "gaping holes", eating and drinking with his friends: do you identify
> this as the resurrected SPIRITUAL BODY, according to Paul's description
> of what the "resurrection" is all about?
Thomas put his finger into the holes in his hands and his
entire hand into Jesus's side. Obviously at that time, Jesus
had NOT yet ascended to the father (did so on the 40th day
after). You can't put your fingers into a spirits hands since
there's no physical hand.
So, if you're claiming Jesus was a spirit, how'd Thomas
ever test to see if he was really Jesus?
As far as Paul Goes, Jesus had ascended to heaven on the 40th
day. From then on it's spiritual interaction from Jesus, no
physical showing up. It's clear that Jesus was a spirit when
talking to Paul since the other soldiers with Paul that day
DID NOT SEE Jesus, only Paul did.
Ac 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and
suddenly there shined round about him a light
from heaven:
(heaven opened up to Paul)
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying
unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said,
I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for
thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what
wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him,
Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told
thee what thou must do.
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,
hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Paul saw Jesus but the soldiers didn't.
Obviously another case of a SPIRITUAL opening up of heaven
and in a selective manner. Much like just prior to Stephen
being stoned. Steven saw heaven, but the others saw nothing.
> >Seems the account says Thomas showed up a full >>> 10 DAYS <<<
> >after and Jesus asked him to put his HAND into his chest.
> >Either:
> >* Thomas was a surgeon and Jesus was in a present day hospital
> > somehow ACCIDENTALLY fabricated in 30 AD (freak photo analogy)
> >* or Jesus is the Son of God.
> OR:
> Both of those are ridiculous options provided by our Master of
> Misinformation, Mr. Boatwright.
Well you're the one claiming you believe the Gospels but
are searching for a "misreading" that allows Jesus to
just have "woke up" after dying and walked around for
40 days then died off in India or something.
ha ha ha...
Again, you can't put your hand in someones side and expect
them to be alive at the time (back in 30AD after 10 days
of having the hole in your side large enough to fit a mans
hand into).
Too bad you bought all those flake "Jesus really was really
living in India" books. They've been trashed so badly, it
kinda shows the great lengths atheists will go to just to
"feel secure" in rejecting the account. Then again, if you
weren't atheist in the first place, you would have actually
read the account and then wouldn't have bothered buying
such a poorly concieved idea for a book.
Oh well, live and learn.
*
In <351F001B...@vnet.net> "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net>
writes:
>
>John P. Boatwright wrote:
>>
>> Shaney boy wrote:
>>
>> > else "before" the big bang.
>>
>>
>
>More of your own delusional justifications for your weak faith, no
>doubt.
>
me
>
>Methinks you'd better do a LOT of praying tonight.
>
Christians who, like Shane and Bishop John Shelby Spong, tell it like
it is and see the literature in the Bible as containing some valuable
SPIRITUAL/ETHICAL messages but not scientifically reliable information.
Hopefully they are a growing majority.
*
In <351ED7...@earthlink.net> Peter Kirby <ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net>
writes:
>
>* wrote:
>>
>> In <351E5C50...@vnet.net> "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net>
>> writes:
>> >
>> >Ian Finnesey wrote:
>> >>
>> >> TIMOTHY GUEGUEN (ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> : But that is the assumption most scientists make, namely that
the
>> universe
>> >> : began with the Big Bang circa 15 billion years ago.
>> >>
>> >> How many scientists can you name who insist there was nothing
before
>> that?
>> >>
>> >That is a very interesting question, and it all boils down to what
you
>> >mean by "nothing."
>> >
>> >"Nothing" usually implies that there is some kind of empty space
for
>> the
>> >nonexistant nothing to not exist in. This is not the case.
>> >
>> the
>> >big bang.
>> >
>> bang"
>> >is inadequate. There was no before, because there was no time!
>> >
>> >At least, that's the theory.
>> >
>> ===>That theory makes about as much sense as the Genesis stories.
>
>Just like the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, huh?
===Well, at least they are referred to as "theories" and not Holy
Scripture "breathed" by some "God".
*
In <6fmhru$qoj$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au> zzmw...@fox.uq.net.au (Matthew J
Wilson) writes:
>
>fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (Ian Finnesey) writes:
>
>>TIMOTHY GUEGUEN (ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca) wrote:
>>: spaceghosts (prosthetic...@wave.co.nz) wrote:
>>: : > God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>
>>: : You can pay for a mans debt, but you can't make him
>>: : innocent by suffering in his place.. :-P
>
>>: : You presuppose that the Universe was made or had
>>: : a beginning.. That's a big assumption...
universe
>>: began with the Big Bang circa 15 billion years ago.
>
>>How many scientists can you name who insist there was nothing before
that?
>
name
>who would insist that *this* universe existed before that?
>
NOTHING by a "God" who was created from ? by a ?, etc.
*
In <351EE5...@teleport.com> "John P. Boatwright"
<sa...@teleport.com> writes:
>
>* wrote:
>
>> ===>The most credible story, actually the only one claiming to rely
on
>> an eye witness account, is the one in the "John" Gospel. It hints at
>> the possibility that Jesus was rescued and nursed back from
>> near-death,perhaps from a coma, like the daughter of Jairus. The
other
>> stories are just too muddled and fancyful. Obviously mixed with
legends
>> and hearsay.
>
>With massive head injuries, internal bleeding from TWO beatings
>and additional scourging (39 lashes with a rope with metal
>balls attached, 40 lashes was considered death), nail holes
>in arteries in the wrists and feet and a gaping hole that
>you could fit your hand into in the side of his chest...
>
>Odd, I don't see a guy living real long in that condition.
===>Where in the world do you get that stupid idea of a "gaping hole"
when the scenario describes a SCRATCH or PRICK to the SIDE of Jesus?
Even "Bring your hand and put your finger" does not imply any "gaping
hole".
Finally, that Jesus you imagine, full of PHYSICAL wounds and
"gaping holes", eating and drinking with his friends: do you identify
this as the resurrected SPIRITUAL BODY, according to Paul's description
of what the "resurrection" is all about?
>Seems the account says Thomas showed up a full >>> 10 DAYS <<<
>after and Jesus asked him to put his HAND into his chest.
>
>Either:
>
>* Thomas was a surgeon and Jesus was in a present day hospital
> somehow ACCIDENTALLY fabricated in 30 AD (freak photo analogy)
>* or Jesus is the Son of God.
>
OR:
Both of those are ridiculous options provided by our Master of
Misinformation, Mr. Boatwright.
Libertarius
Mike Sandler
John P. Boatwright wrote:
> In fact, about every time a proof of God is shown, you
> tend to balk and try to disprove God being right.
>
> That's atheism in a nut shell.
Proof! Ha. The thiestic "proofs" have been so thoroughly refuted that
it is a dead issue.
Mike
John P. Boatwright
Mike Sandler wrote:
ha ha ha...
That's why God had the Genesis account right with
208,000,000:1 odds of him being the source based on
TIMING alone and 2.4x10^105:1 odds based on TERMS alone
using currently measured science data.
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/genesis.htm
So much for your "thiestic proofs as a dead issue".
roger
John P. Boatwright wrote:
> 208,000,000:1 odds ...
So what, there are > 100,000,000,000 stars inthe Milkyway alone. And the
Milkyway is an
average galaxy among > 100,000,000,000 observed
galaxies.
That makes 208:10,000,000,000,000,000 ODDS
for a planet like our in the universe.
And where could you happen to sit, staring, gaping
at the stars ?
Could it be Venus ?
Could it be Pluto ?
Could it be empty space ?
NO, it has to be at one of all those planets that
happen to be, not to hot, not to cold, water present,
etc. etc. etc.
A planet just like our own Mother Earth.
That's totally deterministic.
You, in flesh and blood, could not be standing
anywhere else but on a planet much like our own.
The odds are ZERO for another scenario.
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
NO.Man created god to control the infidels.
The infidels got litterate and investigated the world.
Dark Fader
Actually, the 'babble' is the one greatest and best reason to embrace
atheism.
It is it's own best deterrent to the belief of ANYTHING that it
contains.
Many, after having read the entire 'babble', have come to the conclusion
that all of this shit is impossible.
And rightfully so.
At least if you are a thinking and a sane person.
There are absolutely no reasons why the easter bunny, santa clause and
other creations of a vivid imagination are not just as believable.
In fact, MORE believable since we can 'see' those imaginative symbols
every time we look around.
People not only can't see 'god', but no consistent 'symbol' exists
either.
Is that because there is no consistent 'belief' as to how 'he' should
look?
Or be 'symbolised'?
(Isn't 'he' white, anglo-saxon, and protestant?).
And if there was, wouldn't some 'other' sect would disagree?
Thus, the ONLY 'trouble' that the babble causes anyone is that it is
impossible of cogent belief.
And, if read, really causes a lot of real problems for 'believers',
since it takes a lot of argument to prove something that is impossible!
Not so?
Unexamined 'belief' is no problem, however, especially for a demented
"FUNDIE".
That's why we have such queer anomalies like Swaggart, Baker, Hinn, et
alia, and the entire '700 Club'.
.
John P. Boatwright
roger wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > 208,000,000:1 odds ...
> So what, there are 100,000,000,000 stars inthe Milkyway alone. And the
> Milkyway is an average galaxy among 100,000,000,000 observed
> galaxies.
> That makes 208:10,000,000,000,000,000 ODDS
> for a planet like our in the universe.
You're missing the point, God gave the SEQUENCE of events
with TIMING that matches to 208,000,000:1 odds of anyone
GUESSING the correct sequence. The standard atheist stance
is that Moses was some "drunken sheep herder" just wandering
around making up stories.
He "guessed" the right SEQUENCE.
It's like standing up on national TV and saying you won
a 50 million dollar lottery and saying you ABSOLUTELY
won, no doubt about it >>> BEFORE <<< they draw the winning
numbers.
As far as PHRASES go, Moses had them right to 2.4x10^105:1
odds of having them in the right time slots.
That's 2400000000000....00000000:1 odds (105 zeros).
Those odds will DRASTICALLY INCREASE when they show
water being around in the first 2 billion years.
That says God's gave the account to Moses, just like
Moses said he did.
> And where could you happen to sit, staring, gaping
> at the stars ?
> Could it be Venus ?
> Could it be Pluto ?
> Could it be empty space ?
> NO, it has to be at one of all those planets that
> happen to be, not to hot, not to cold, water present,
> etc. etc. etc.
> A planet just like our own Mother Earth.
> That's totally deterministic.
Not 240000000000...0000000:1 odds (105 zeros) when
it's assumed a "drunken sheep herder" was the other
option for a guy walking around telling tales.
> You, in flesh and blood, could not be standing
> anywhere else but on a planet much like our own.
> The odds are ZERO for another scenario.
Nah, because:
> > God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
> NO.Man created god to control the infidels.
ha ha ha...
Any proof?
> The infidels got litterate and investigated the world.
And then inadvertently proved God was right in Genesis.
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/genesis.htm
ha ha ha...
Too funny.
*
In <351F3C...@teleport.com> "John P. Boatwright"
<sa...@teleport.com> writes:
>* wrote:
>
>> ===>We should be grateful that there are some EDUCATED, INTELLIGENT
>> Christians who, like Shane and Bishop John Shelby Spong, tell it
like
>> it is and see the literature in the Bible as containing some
valuable
>> SPIRITUAL/ETHICAL messages but not scientifically reliable
information.
>
>to 208,000,000:1 odds of him being the source:
===>With your skills of calculating odd, you should go to the horse
races.
You'd lose your shirt.
*
In <351F3D...@teleport.com> "John P. Boatwright"
<sa...@teleport.com> writes:
>John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
>> * wrote:
>
>> > ===>We should be grateful that there are some EDUCATED,
INTELLIGENT
>> > Christians who, like Shane and Bishop John Shelby Spong, tell it
like
>> > it is and see the literature in the Bible as containing some
valuable
>> > SPIRITUAL/ETHICAL messages but not scientifically reliable
information.
>
>> That's why God had the Genesis account correctly given
>> to 208,000,000:1 odds of him being the source:
>
>Correct path
===>The odds are 100% that the TWO "genesis accountS (plural)" are
recycled ancient Babylonian creation myths. In #1 they even preserved
the reference to the "GODS (plural" by describing ELOHIM (plural)
[Semitic El (god) -IM (plural suffix) as the creator in "OUR image and
likeness". A singular verb is used to refer to the DIVINE COLLECTIVE of
the GODS. It also preserves the reference to a FEMALE DEITY, when it
describes theat the DIVINE COLLECTIVE created MAN in "our image" MALE
and FEMALE. So, the DIVINE COLLECTIVE must have included at least ONE
MALE GOD and ONE FEMALE GOD. Now, those are REAL, not some dreamed-up
odds! All you have to do is READ THE STORY!
If you needed it, I could even quote you the ORIGINAL, where the
Gods (male and female) are explicitly named. But it is your gamble.
*
In <351F60...@teleport.com> "John P. Boatwright"
<sa...@teleport.com> writes:
>Mike Sandler wrote:
>
>> John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
>> > tend to balk and try to disprove God being right.
>
>> > That's atheism in a nut shell.
>
>> Proof! Ha. The thiestic "proofs" have been so thoroughly
>> refuted that it is a dead issue.
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>That's why God had the Genesis account right with
>208,000,000:1 odds of him being the source based on
>TIMING alone and 2.4x10^105:1 odds based on TERMS alone
>using currently measured science data.
===>Where in the world did you get those laughable figures you keep
repeating? Don't you realize how stupid you sound?
*
In <351F6731...@hem1.passagen.se> roger
>
>So what, there are > 100,000,000,000 stars inthe Milkyway alone. And
the
>Milkyway is an
>average galaxy among > 100,000,000,000 observed
>galaxies.
>That makes 208:10,000,000,000,000,000 ODDS
>for a planet like our in the universe.
>
>at the stars ?
>Could it be Venus ?
>Could it be Pluto ?
>Could it be empty space ?
>NO, it has to be at one of all those planets that
>happen to be, not to hot, not to cold, water present,
>etc. etc. etc.
>A planet just like our own Mother Earth.
>
>That's totally deterministic.
>anywhere else but on a planet much like our own.
>The odds are ZERO for another scenario.
===>Why don't you read some science books or magazines? Watch the
DISCOVERY CHANNEL. Do SOMETHING to overcome your ignorant attitude.
Your arguments seem to be based on one science only, called NUMEROLOGY.
Here is an experiment for you:
Go outside your home and pick up the first piece of stone you find.
Now calculate the probability of that particular piece of stone being
at that place at that time.
The odds will be ASTRONOMICALLY SMALL, in fact next to ZERO, since
you don't have enough decimals on your computer.
CONCLUSION: It is utterly foolish to try to calculate the odds of
occurrence of ONE SINGLE EVENT in the Universe.
Shane D. Killian
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Oh ya, here's an EXACT quote from Shane Killian's previous post:
>
> =====================================================
> else "before" the big bang.
>
> =====================================================
>
done, Boaty! Does this mean you're improving?
> Yet the bible clearly states that >>> God <<< was around
> when he made his creation.
>
defined in physical terms.
So, which is God? Matter, energy, space, or time?
> Shanes statement is typical of what an atheist would say.
>
> Atheists are so easy to see through.
>
> (wolves in sheeps clothing an all)
>
Whatever.
Shane D. Killian
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Shaney boy wrote:
>
> > John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
>
> > > > There was no matter, energy, space, time, or anything
> > > > else "before" the big bang.
>
>
> such and then goes on to claim the statement is baseless)
>
> > What???
>
> (and tries to act surprized as well)
>
low!
Sheez, all I did was state what the current theory on the Big Bang was
to someone who asked. What's your problem?
> > Since when can you not be a Christian and study science, too?
>
> You said "there was matter, energy, space, time, or ANYTHING
> else "before" the big bang.
>
> That says YOU believe God didn't exist before his
> creation, hence your statement claims God didn't make
> what he said he made.
>
I NEVER SAID ONE SMEGGING WORD ABOUT GOD, YOU MISERABLE, PEDANTIC,
VITUPEROUS LIAR!!!
> It's obvious that you're an atheist.
>
In your delusions. You just can't handle the fact that a Christian might
actually disagree with you about something. It might shatter your weak
little faith.
Open your heart to the REAL Jesus Christ, the Christ on the Mount and at
the Samaritan well. Stop picking and bending and twisting scripture to
meet your preconceived notions and actually open yourself to the
message!
Strong faith comes from seeking knowledge int he world around us, being
open to things we've never seen before, and being ready to challenge out
traditions and prjudices. Just like Jesus did.
> > More of your own delusional justifications for your weak
> > faith, no doubt.
>
> Nope, YOUR own words convict you of atheism.
>
How??? When have I *EVER* said I didn't believe in God? I have said just
the opposite here numerous occasions!
Okay, tell ya what...call or write the pastor at Mt. Pleasant United
Methodist Church in Sherrills Ford, North Carolina and tell him that the
bass player in his church's music group, whose baby is being christened
next Sunday, is an atheist. See what he tells you.
Me, I'm sick of you. Either have the courage to follow through on what
you claim to believe or shut up and leave the rest of us alone. Geez
Louise, Boaty, my post wasb't even ADDRESSED to you!
You seriously need to get a grip.
> In fact, about every time a proof of God is shown, you
> tend to balk and try to disprove God being right.
>
The only thing I rebut are your pathetic delusions. They have nothing to
do with "proof" of God. In fact, your attempts to "prove" the existance
of God is a sure sign of your weak faith.
> > Else, why would you resort to your unfounded name-calling?
> > By calling me an atheist,
>
> You just proved such above in ONE sentence.
>
> > which I'm not,
>
> Are you denying you said the line above?
>
I'm saying that studying scientific theories has NOTHING to do with
religion.
> > and a racist, which I;m not?
>
> Again, you said the man displayed by the image on the Shroud
> of Turin just couldn't have been a Jew (like somehow you
> can spot a Jew in some way, I can't tell the difference).
>
> That's racist.
>
You smegging liar. I answered this several times before, AND YOU NEVER
RESPONDED TO THAT. I'm not going to waste any more time with you on that
subject. I have posted the physiognomical evidence. You have ignored it.
There we are.
> > Methinks you'd better do a LOT of praying tonight.
>
> Ya right.
>
Boaty doesn't think he needs to pray. How righteous of him.
Shane D. Killian
* wrote:
>
> ===>We should be grateful that there are some EDUCATED, INTELLIGENT
> Christians who, like Shane and Bishop John Shelby Spong, tell it like
> it is and see the literature in the Bible as containing some valuable
> SPIRITUAL/ETHICAL messages but not scientifically reliable > information.
>
out the Bible as some scientifically reliable text, but not (apparently)
containing valuable spiritual and ethical messages. And then claim that
they represent all of Christianity.
> Hopefully they are a growing majority.
>
majority.
Douglas & Jennie Jackson
In our last episode of *[alt.atheism]*, John P. "Will Twist Logic and
Science For Jeezus!" Boatwright wrote:
> That's why God had the Genesis account correctly given
> to 208,000,000:1 odds of him being the source:
> http://www.teleport.com/~salad/genesis.htm
You honestly think that because you refer to a web page of
exceedingly dubious merit *of your own twisted devising* that anyone
is going to take you at all seriously? I don't think so! If, just
for once, you were able to muster up the energy to remove your head
from your own fundament, I'm sure that you'll be more able to see the
world for what it really is. If nothing else, I'm sure that it'll cut
down on your monthly mouthwash bill.
> Yet the bible clearly states that >>> God <<< was around
> when he made his creation.
Oh goody goody gumdrops! Final, clinching proof that the Babble
is right, because John Pusfuck Bloatwrong says that it is. Oh how I
have been wrong! Forgive me my crimes of critical thought and
independant reasoning. Take it, and yourself, elsewhere you miserable
little dried up cumstain. Your months upon months of incessant
babbling, bleating and spewing forth of the most unmitigated bullshit
is a testament to the mind-destroying effects of the more extreme
variants of the most diseased branch of Xianity that it has been my
sad misfortune to encounter. You, my loathesome and reprehensible
f(r)iend, should be a poster boy like those that appear on billboards
warning of the effects of AIDS and other STDs.
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Give it a rest you puling little shit. God is a myth, a fucking
twisted little fairy story that people who don't know any fucking
better tell their mutating offspring at night so that they'll become
braindead little brownshirts for the nearest religious bigot. Just
like you. The only bad thing I have to say about evolution is that it
is just so slow. If there were any justice in this world, specimens
such as yourself would have been left with the rest of the slime-molds
centuries ago. As it stands however, we have to put up with you and
your inbred ilk for the foreseeable future.
Non Serviam,
Doug (Atheist #274)
--
_.-----------I don't need God or religion. I have an Amiga.-----------.
_ // I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed |
\X/ or numbered! My life is my own. - No.6 to No.2, "The Prisoner" |
`------------Amiga Users - Someone you trust is one of us.--------------'
David Michael
julidan <jul...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<351DC8...@ix.netcom.com>...
> James Penrose wrote:
> >
> > Greg Harvey (Greg....@thezone.net) wrote:
> > : "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> writes:
> >
> > : >
> > : > And what about the 2 angels rolling away the stone?
> >
> > : Matthew 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake:
> > : for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven,
> > : and came and rolled back the stone from the door,
> > : and sat upon it.
> >
> > : Those two angels? Or was it one schizophrenic angel?
> >
> > : (with many thanks to project gutenberg for providing this crud in
> > : electronic form :P)
> >
> > Don't forget, at least one more gospel had the stone already rolled
> > away. Not to mention at least three differeing stories as to who first
> > found the tomb.
> When talking to Bible-believers please remember what Ned Flanders
> (Homer Simpson's neighbor) once said: "I believe the Bible; even the
> stuff that contradicts all the other stuff."(or something like that)
> There's always some convoluted explanation for the discrepancies in
> God's Word. I just think everyone was really scared of God and afraid
> to point out that he needed the services of a good editor.
>
Aidan Dominic Sims
On 30 Mar 1998, * wrote:
> In <351F001B...@vnet.net> "Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net>
> writes:
> >
> >John P. Boatwright wrote:
> >>
> >> Shaney boy wrote:
> >>
> >> > There was no matter, energy, space, time, or anything
> >> > else "before" the big bang.
> >>
> >> See, you're an atheist and NOT a christian.
> >>
> >What??? Since when can you not be a Christian and study science, too?
> >
> >More of your own delusional justifications for your weak faith, no
> >doubt.
> >
> >Else, why would you resort to your unfounded name-calling? By calling
> me
> >an atheist, which I'm not, and a racist, which I;m not?
> >
> >Methinks you'd better do a LOT of praying tonight.
> >
> >--
> ===>We should be grateful that there are some EDUCATED, INTELLIGENT
> Christians who, like Shane and Bishop John Shelby Spong, tell it like
> it is and see the literature in the Bible as containing some valuable
> SPIRITUAL/ETHICAL messages but not scientifically reliable information.
>
> Hopefully they are a growing majority.
>
> Libertarius
> *DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
>
>
May I add my support to this statement. It is unfortunate that clear thinkers
like these two have their religion and their intelligence besmirched by the
likes of Boaty and McMoron.
The Ryddler
-------------------------------------------------------
They use religion like a drunken man uses a lamp-post:
For support, not illumination.
-------------------------------------------------------
*
In <351F46...@teleport.com> "John P. Boatwright"
===>So, he was not a RESURRECTED SPIRITUAL BEING. He was the same
physical/bilogical MAN that had been nailed to the cross! NO
RESURRECTION!
>
>As far as Paul Goes, Jesus had ascended to heaven on the 40th
>day.
===>Where does Paul say anything about any 40 days?
From then on it's spiritual interaction from Jesus, no
>physical showing up. It's clear that Jesus was a spirit when
>talking to Paul since the other soldiers with Paul that day
>DID NOT SEE Jesus, only Paul did.
===>It is clear that in his schizophrenic episode Saul THOUGHT he saw
"Christos", an incarnate divine savior god, just like the ones his
Pagan friends in Tarsus believed in, and it scared him blind. Those
around him only heard a loud NOISE, a typical desert THUNDER!
>
> Ac 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and
> suddenly there shined round about him a light
> from heaven:
>
>(heaven opened up to Paul)
===>A LIGHTNING STRUCK NEAR HIM
> 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying
> unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
===>A typical schizophrenic episode, hearing voices. And it is obviousl
from all his writings that he kept on hearing those voices and getting
instructions from that "Christos".
> 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said,
> I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for
> thee to kick against the pricks. -
> 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what
> wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him,
> Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told
> thee what thou must do.
> 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,
> hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
>
>Paul saw Jesus but the soldiers didn't.
===>Saul saw a "vision". He INTERPRETED it as "Jesus". Early Jewish
Christians believed that he may have been meeting up with Satan.
===>What makes you think I am an atheist? Too bad for you, I used to be
where you are now, a fundamentalist trinitarian Christian who believed
all those stories, without even bothering to compare them. My eyes and
mind have been opened, and I no longer am a "believer", but I have
always said that without a clear and precise definiotion of "THEOS"
("God"), BOTH theism AND atheism are ridiculous positions.
Amber
Re: Header.
Oh, oh, I know!!! *waving hand around in air*
QUOTE THE BIBLE!!
Amber
John P Bloatwright
Shaney boy wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > Shaney boy wrote:
> > > There was no matter, energy, space, time, or anything
> > > else "before" the big bang.
> > See, you're an atheist and NOT a christian.
(notice here, Shaney boy snipped my idiotic bullshit for the
simple reason that the statement is baseless)
> What???
(and acts surprized as well, even though he knows I'm a lying prick)
> Since when can you not be a Christian and study science, too?
You said "there was matter, energy, space, time, or ANYTHING
else "before" the big bang.
I've twisted that to mean YOU believe God didn't exist before his
creation, hence MY version of your statement claims God didn't make
what I've said he said he made.
It's obvious that you're smarter than me, that I'm a lying,
strawman-weaving dickwad, and that I'm not even a christian's asshole.
> More of your own delusional justifications for your weak
> faith, no doubt.
Nope, even MY bastardization of YOUR own words convict you
of being a shitload more rational than me, and ooooo! I just HATE that!
In fact, about every time one of my contrived proofs of God is babbled, you
tend to balk and try to disprove ME being right.
That's rationality in a nut shell.
> Else, why would you resort to your unfounded name-calling?
> By calling me an atheist,
You just proved that I'm a liar in ONE sentence.
> which I'm not,
Are you denying that I fuck my hamster?
> and a racist, which I;m not?
Again, I'm inventing whatever crap I can in my vain attempt
to discredit you. You've shown me up in EVERY instance,
especially about this fictitious Shroud horseshit, and as >> I <<
have claimed the Shroud to be special, it IS, coz I'M the self-designated
MAGIC PIXIE SPOKES IDIOT, not you. (somehow you
can be a christian without being as mentally diseased as me).
That's better than me, and I HATE that.
> Methinks you'd better do a LOT of praying tonight.
Ya right.
Odd how you think that me fucking my hamster is stuff you don't want people
to see.
Too bad it's SO OBVIOUS.
God made fuck all, I am incorrigibly stupid.
John P Bloatwright
Mike Sandler wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > In fact, about every time a proof of God is shown, you
> > tend to balk and try to disprove God being right.
> > That's atheism in a nut shell.
> Proof! Ha. The thiestic "proofs" have been so thoroughly
> refuted that it is a dead issue.
ha ha ha...
That's why I've contrived this crap about God having the Genesis account
right with 20 zwillion kintillion:1 odds of him being the source based on
TIMING alone and googolplex^my foreskin:1 odds based on TERMS alone
using a Bloatwright bastardization of science data.
http://www.I'mafuckwit.com/~dipshit/hamster/howtofuck.hamsters
So much for my idiotic gibberish "making any sense".
God made fuck all, I'm a contriving, squawking, imbecile.
John P Bloatwright
roger wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > 208,000,000:1 odds ...
> So what, there are 100,000,000,000 stars inthe Milkyway alone. And the
> Milkyway is an average galaxy among 100,000,000,000 observed
> galaxies.
> That makes 208:10,000,000,000,000,000 ODDS
> for a planet like our in the universe.
You're missing the point, I contrived the SEQUENCE of events
with TIMING that matches to a zwillion kintillion:1 odds of anyone
GUESSING the correct sequence. The standard atheist stance
is that I'm a fucking idiot, just wandering around making up stories.
I "back engineered" the right SEQUENCE.
It's nothing at all like standing up on national TV and saying you're
and absolute imbecile, but if I had the chance, I'd definitely do it.
I'd even take a dump in front of the world and rub it all over my genitals
just to prove what sort of ABSOLUTELY insane crap I'm prepared
to do >>> BEFORE <<< I fuck my hamster.
As far as FUCKING HAMSTERS goes, Moses had them right
up to the balls - all 2.4x10^105:1 of them! But what were the
odds of them having tight slots?
That's 2400000000000....00000000:1 odds (105 zeros).
Those odds will DRASTICALLY INCREASE when I invent
more crap to try to make them increase.
I say that God gave the account to Moses, just like
I said he did, and I should know because I'm
the self-designated spokes imbecile.
> And where could you happen to sit, staring, gaping
> at the stars ?
> Could it be Venus ?
> Could it be Pluto ?
> Could it be empty space ?
> NO, it has to be at one of all those planets that
> happen to be, not to hot, not to cold, water present,
> etc. etc. etc.
> A planet just like our own Mother Earth.
> That's totally deterministic.
That's not what the 240:1 odds (dribble fweeble drip) when
it's assumed I'm right because I wanna be right. But really,
I'm only a "drunken hamster fucker" and it's the only
option for an idiot like me who's walking around telling tales.
> You, in flesh and blood, could not be standing
> anywhere else but on a planet much like our own.
> The odds are ZERO for another scenario.
Nah, because:
> > God made fuck all, and I'm a drooling fuckup.
> Man created god to control the infidels.
ha ha ha...
And I don't need any proof. What I say goes.
> The infidels got litterate and investigated the world.
And then I made up all this shit about God and Genesis.
http://www.idiocy.com/~salad/ducttapeandhamsters/oops,hesplit.htm
ha ha ha...
Sometimes even I consider my idiocy too funny.
John P Bloatwright
* wrote:
> ===>We should be grateful that there are some EDUCATED, INTELLIGENT
> Christians who, like Shane and Bishop John Shelby Spong, tell it like
> it is and see the literature in the Bible as containing some valuable
> SPIRITUAL/ETHICAL messages but not scientifically reliable information.
That's why I've invented shit about the Genesis account correctly giving
208,000,000:1 odds of whatever it is I want it to be:
http://www.Isleepinmyownexcrement.com/~smear/feces.htm
Oh ya, here's more CONTRIVED crap straight out of my poisoned little mind.
What it has to do with Shane Killian's previous post is anyone's guess:
=====================================================
I like to smear feces all over myself. I love to piss on the rug
in front of my entire family. I fuck my hamster.
-- John P Bloatwright, Mar 1998
=====================================================
Yet I clearly albeit idiotically state that >>> God <<< was around
when he made his creation.
Shanes statement is typical of what someone who doesn't
buy my bullshit would say.
Atheists are my intellectual superiors.
(now where's my hamster?)
God made fuck all, I wish I had the courage for suicide.
John P Bloatwright
* wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote
> <sa...@teleport.com> writes:
> >* wrote:
> >> ===>The most credible story, actually the only one claiming to rely on
> >> an eye witness account, is the one in the "John" Gospel. It hints at
> >> the possibility that Jesus was rescued and nursed back from
> >> near-death,perhaps from a coma, like the daughter of Jairus. The other
> >> stories are just too muddled and fancyful. Obviously mixed with legends
> >> and hearsay.
> >With massive head injuries, internal bleeding from TWO beatings
> >and additional scourging (39 lashes with a rope with metal
> >balls attached, 40 lashes was considered death), nail holes
> >in arteries in the wrists and feet and a gaping hole that
> >you could fit your hand into in the side of his chest...
> >Odd, I don't see a guy living real long in that condition.
Especially when the Romans considered false eyelashes as
being the same as REAL ONES, even if the guy wore blue eye shadow.
> ===>Where in the world do you get that stupid idea of a "gaping hole"
JPB 20:25 The other crap I've babbled makes no sense either, We have
seen the hamster. But he said unto them,
=====================================================
Except I shall see in his hands the duct-taped rodent,
and put my finger into the rodent's anus,
and thrust my penis into my goldfish, I am an idiot.
=====================================================
Thomas planed down a table before seeing that Jesus was slacking off again,
and that he would ONLY continue carpentry if he could put his finger into
his butt-hole and glide his turgid member into Thomas's backside.
I said it, but then I've said a heap of idiotic gibberish.
Then when Thomas was screwing Jesus:
JPB 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger,
and fondle my nutsack;
(asks him to bring his finger to the hole between his buttcheeks)
and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into
my anus: and massage my g-spot, my prostate.
Yep, he then asks for his entire hand and has him thrust
his hand into his ass.
> when the scenario describes a SCRATCH or PRICK to the SIDE of Jesus?
> Even "Bring your hand and put your finger" does not imply any "gaping
> hole".
He asked TWICE
* Once for his finger to put in the hole in his butt.
* Once for his hand to put into the hole in his butt.
Get over it - Jesus was into fisting.
> Finally, that Jesus you imagine, full of PHYSICAL wounds and
> "gaping holes", eating and drinking with his friends: do you identify
> this as the resurrected SPIRITUAL BODY, according to Paul's description
> of what the "resurrection" is all about?
Thomas put his finger into the hole in his butt and his
entire hand into Jesus's ass. Obviously at that time, Jesus
had NOT yet cum (did so on the 40th day after).
You can't put your fingers into a spirit's anus since
spirits don't really exist.
So, if you're claiming Jesus wasn't fisted, how'd Thomas
ever fist him to see if he was really into fisting?
As far as my hamster Goes, I had shot my load on the 40th
stroke. From then on it's all guts and squealing from the hamster, no
physical slowing up. It's clear that Jesus was a fister when
talking to Paul since the other soldiers with Paul that day
COULD SMELL SHIT on Jesus, and on Paul's fist.
JPB 9:3 And as he was fisted, he came, near Damascus: and
suddenly there spurted out of him a squirt
from his penis:
(Jesus opened up to Paul's thrusts)
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying
unto him, Saul, Saul, why fisteth thou me?
5 And he said, For thine g-spot, Lord. And the Lord said,
I am Jesus whom thou fisteth: my penis is hard for
thee to lick my holy prick.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what
wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him,
Arise thine member, and go into the city, and it shall be told
thee what thou must do.
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,
hearing him groaning, and seeing his stretched sphincter.
Paul saw Jesus and the soldiers got really horny.
Obviously another case of a CONTRIVED load of shit, and me
reading the bible in a selective manner. Much like just prior to posting
to Usenet, I like getting stoned. I see that my garbage makes some kind
of sense, but anyone else sees nothing but my mental wanking.
> >Seems the account says Thomas showed up a full >>> 10 DAYS <<<
> >after and Jesus asked him to put his HAND into his chest.
> >Either:
> >* Thomas was a surgeon and Jesus was in a present day hospital
> > somehow ACCIDENTALLY fabricated in 30 AD (freak photo analogy)
> >* or Jesus is the Son of God.
> OR:
> Both of those are ridiculous options provided by our Master of
> Misinformation, Mr. Boatwright.
Well I'm the one claiming to be the spokes idiot for god
and I'm searching for another "rodent" that allows me to
tape him up and fuck him.
ha ha ha...
Again, you can't put your hand in someones backside and expect
them to not be livid at the time (back passage, last stop at the
end of the spine; having a hole in your ass large enough to fit a mans
hand into).
Too bad you bought all those flake "Jesus really was really
raised from the dead" books. They've been trashed so badly, it
kinda shows the great lengths idiots like me will go to just to
"feel secure" in believing my fantasies. Then again, if I
wasn't a hamster-fucking idiot in the first place, I would have actually
read something other than the fairy tale crap I invent, and I wouldn't have
to bother buying any more hamsters.
Oh well, I know I'll never learn.
God made fuck all, now I'm off to fuck my hamster.
roger
<snipping the odds>
John P. Boatwright wrote:
> roger wrote:
> > You, in flesh and blood, could not be standing
> > anywhere else but on a planet much like our own.
> > The odds are ZERO for another scenario.
> Nah, because:
So you believe that you could be standing, breathing inempty space only if
your god wanted it that way ?
Seems like hell to me.
> > > God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
> > NO.Man created god to control the infidels.
> Any proof?
The biblestory was invented and written by humans.
Jesus died because he made some political statements.
That could happen today in the middleeast.
> > The infidels got litterate and investigated the world.
> And then inadvertently proved God was right in Genesis.
Can you show me the missing link of Eden ?
John P. Boatwright
You know Shaney, a simple answer of the form:
* "yes God was around before he made the universe"
* "no God was not around before the big bang"
would have been sufficient.
No need for "liar liar" and such.
As far as your claims of Jesus looking UN-Jewish on
the Shroud of Turin, whatever. It sounded like a racist
comment to me in that I can't tell who looks Jewish and
who doesn't.
If you gave a reply as to what looks Jewish and what
doesn't, I haven't yet found your post on it. Maybe
you can include Jewish attributes to look for in a
reply to this?
I've worked with several Jewish people in the past and
had no idea until they mentioned it. That's why when
you brought up your comment about Jesus not looking
Jewish, it just seemed kinda racist to me.
As far as you being Christian or not, your attempts
to constantly disprove God saying things in the bible
that are verifiable against science data just leaves
me wondering why you bother to believe God at all.
Look up the verse:
"Prove all things, hold fast that which is good"
Seems like you feel only science can be right and that
the bible isn't a valid source of information to compare
against.
Odd.
Anyway, I disagree with you. I feel God was right and
told people exactly what he did using Hebrews 3300
years ago to keep his account intact. Using what God
said shows extreme correlation to the science data
in simple statistical bin format for TIMING and TERMS.
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/genesis.htm
Apparently it upsets you that God could have given the
proper timing and terms in Genesis in that you felt he
was only being spiritual or maybe you feel he used only
24 hour days. But that implies all the science data is
either wrong or was set up as a trick to look extremely
old just so God could fool people and drive them away.
Doesn't sound real plausible.
So I see God as being right all along and WAITING
for people to realize he had already told them what
was done. Their disbelief was UNJUSTIFIED since he said
right from the start and was later proven right.
Stix
David Michael posted the following to alt.atheism:
The same god-soaked drool for the nth fucking time.
<snip>
That does it.
Brutus?
<SNARL!!>
<<*PLONK*>>
Hmm, feeling somewhat savage today eh boy?
Good killfile. :)
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Gregory Gyetko
John P Bloatwright wrote:
[snip great post]
That's one for the archives.
Greg.
--
alt.atheism Atheist #911
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway,
so why waste my time?"
EAC homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9916/
merlin
dear ms or mr salad,
> Thomas put his finger into the holes in his hands and his
> entire hand into Jesus's side. Obviously at that time, Jesus
> had NOT yet ascended to the father (did so on the 40th day
> after). You can't put your fingers into a spirits hands since
> there's no physical hand.
THEN DEMAND THE SAME. if you really believe this story ask jesus to come
to you and let you do the same. you will not and cannot.
why do you focus on the death jesus? why is his life not more interesting
to you that you see salvation in his death rather than in the life he
lead. refocus if you can and start living. if a susposed dead man can
come to thomas he can come to you 2.000 years later.
i think this story supports my view that jesus did not die on the cross
but lived and visited with people after his recovery before moving away
from the area with mary to nothern iraq or iran.
merlin
John P Bloatwright
You know Shaney, a simple answer of the form:
* "yes John, you are the spokesperson for God"
* "yes John, you are the spokesperson for God"
would have been sufficient.
But as I'm a liar, I guess there was a need for "liar liar" and such.
As far as any of my claims of Jesus, or God, or Genesis
or the Shroud of Turin, forget them. I'm an idiot, and I
freely admit that I can't tell shit from clay.
If you gave a reply as to what looks Jewish and what
doesn't, I ignored it, because I am a loud-mouthed puke.
Maybe you can suggest some methods of suicide in a
reply to this?
I've wanked my penis raw in the past and had no idea
about anything at all until this thing with my hamster.
That's why I'm backpeddling like crazy now - I know
how much of a dickhead I've made myself appear.
As far as you being Christian or not, your attempts
to constantly disprove what I say about things in the bible
that I've dreamt up in my own deluded mind that go
against the bible and science data, just leaves me wondering
why you bother to talk to me at all.
Look up my mother's dress:
"Babble like a fuckwit, hold your dick constantly"
Seems like I feel only my own idiocy can be right and that
reality isn't a valid source of information to compare
against.
I realize I'm really odd.
Anyway, I agree with you. I feel I'm a schmuck and I've
told people utter crap abut what god did using garbage I make up
on the fly. Using duct tape, I've managed to actually fuck
my hamster and that shows extreme correlation to bestiality
in simple statistical bin format for WANKING and BUGGERY.
http://www.backpeddler.com/~suck/up/to.Shane.coz.he's.kickin'.my.ass
Apparently it upsets you that I am the spokes idiot for
a magic pixie and that I've given the proper type of tape
to use on your hamster, or maybe you feel that screwing
hamsters 24 hours a day is sick. But that implies that I'm
either wrong or just a gullible meat-sack who looks extremely
stupid, but I'm gonna keep trying to fool people and drive them away.
Doesn't sound real christian, I know, but then, I'm an idiot.
So I see myself as being a moron all along and WAITING
for people to realize that I have already told them why
I'm so fucked up. Their disbelief was JUSTIFIED since I'm an
idiot, as they've known right from the start.
God made fuck all, this post is the most pathetic puddle of groveling I've
ever written.
John P. Boatwright
Six wrote:
> Sometimes even I consider my idiocy too funny.
Well of course, you're an Aussie.
Proof that God was the source of Genesis in the bible:
(99.9999995% chance of God being the source based on
TIMING alone, much higher if calculating TERM selections)
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/genesis.htm
John P. Boatwright
Six wrote:
> Oh well, I know I'll never learn.
Probably not.
Proof that God was the source of Genesis in the bible:
(99.9999995% chance of God being the source based on
TIMING alone, much higher if calculating TERM selections)
*********************************************************
What? Genesis "God day" Science Match?
==============================================================
------------------------------- - 12 Byr Yes
Universe Start, dividing 1 - 11 Byr
------------------------------- - 10 Byr
2 - 9 Byr
------------------------------- - 8 Byr
3 - 7 Byr
------------------------------- - 6 Byr
Moon and Sun, dividing 4 - 5 Byr Yes
------------------------------- - 4 Byr
First Ocean life 5 - 3 Byr Yes
------------------------------- - 2 Byr
Man and land animals 6 - 1 Byr Yes
------------------------------- ~ 0 (<10,000 yrs ago)
God resting from work 7 NOW
Genesis Science
--------------------------------------------
Age of sun 2-3 "God day" 4.6 Byr
Age of univ 6 "God day" 12 +/-1 Byr
First ocean life 1-2 "God day" 3.4 Byr
Age of moon 2-3 "God day" 4.6 Byr
Age of man 0-1 "God day" < 0.02 Byr
Land animals 0-1 "God day" 0.6 Byr
==========================================================
Ave univ/sun 2.4 2.6
Ave sun/moon 1.0 1.0
Ave univ/oceanlife 4.0 3.4
==========================================================
Also, earth given as "void and without form" on the first
"God day" is correct given lighter elemental matter is
expected from right after the big bang.
* "Earth void and without form", 1st God day, CORRECTLY
given against the science data timing.
And that land masses appearing on the 3rd "God day"
and the expected further land mass added on the 4th
"God day" while the moon was formed (close proximity,
matter would continue to coat the earth) giving a
younger earth age that would display a 4th "God day"
for the "apparent" earth's age.
* Apparent Earth age would match the moon age, 4th "God day",
CORRECTLY given again (earth, moon and sun all have 4.6
billion year ages, all align in timing with Genesis when
considering the later matter dumped on earth to form the
moon).
As for the actual chances of "some mystic" writing Genesis
and getting the time slots right (7 "God days" as milestones):
Age of sun chance is 1/7
Age of moon chance is 1/7
Age of first oceanlife chance is 1/7
Age of univ chance is 1/7
Age of man chance is 1/7
Age of animals chance is 1/7
Age of final land (*) chance is 1/7
Initial earth matter chance is 1/7
Dividing energy/matter chance is 1/6 (when universe made)
Dividing energy/matter chance is 1/6 (when sun was formed)
(*) age of final land matter assumes land finally
appearing on the 3rd "God day" and continuing to build
up while God forms the moon (which is fairly large and
close to the earth). Therefore the moon and earth would
have the same upper matter measured ages (and they do).
Combined chance that a "mystic" could have gotten them
right (using the 1/7 and 1/6 terms above):
====================
1 out of 208,000,000
====================
Hence God actually gave the Genesis account since from
above the probability of God having it right turns out
to be:
===============================================
99.9999995% chance God gave the info in Genesis
===============================================
Now for the MUCH higher >>> TERMS <<< probabilities
(correctly given phrases and their probabilities assuming
a 8000 word Hebrew language):
Phrase Probability
--------------------------------------------------------------
* "Let there be light" (start of the universe 8000^4:1
as ENERGY)
* "earth void and without form" for the earth's 8000^5:1
initial matter)
* "divided the light from the darkness" 8000^6:1
(energy and matter separation after the
big bang).
* "divided the light from the darkenss" 8000^6:1
(energy and matter separation after the
sun forms and the sun starts radiating).
* "earth recieved days, seasons, and years" 8000^6:1
(earth sees them when the sun and moon are
finally formed).
All these phrases were given at the proper times in Genesis.
The combined probability for just the phrases becomes:
===================================================
2.42 x 10^105 to one odds of God giving the account
based on TERMS used and given at the proper time.
===================================================
This is substantial in that IF Moses was some "drunken
sheep herder" just going around making up rambling tales,
he could have said most anything at anytime in the account
such as:
* "Wandering camels through the desert"
* "Broken tent stakes let the tent collapse"
* "Elephants holding up the earth"
* "Chickens laying eggs formed the mountains"
And Moses could have said such in any of the
time slots the phrases were used. It takes
THOUGHT and KNOWLEDGE to give the proper
statement at the proper time.
Therefore, just from phrases alone, the probability
of God giving the account becomes:
99.999999999999...999% (105 nines total)
It's basically 100% that God gave the account
since 99.9999...999% (50 nines) is considered 100%.
And as a lock and key against claiming a common
fasination with "light", notice that "let there
be light" was given 3 "God days" PRIOR to the sun
showing up. That's correctly given AGAINST common
knowledge. And there's no flake statments like
"torches in the night", "elephants holding up the
earth", "large eggs in the sky", etc...
Further odds improvements will occur when evidence for oxygen
is shown to have existed at the start of the big bang and the
water related timing and terms are adjusted accordingly.
Details on how the numbers are given in Genesis:
------------------------------------------------
* Sun made on "God day" #4
* Universe (let there be light) on "God day" #1
* Universe or creation is listed as 6 "God days" long
* The 7th "God day" only just started and hasn't completed.
* Gen 2:4 says that GENERATIONS of time are occurring
in each "God day".
* 2 Peter 3:8 says that God can cruise time extremely fast
or extremely slow as he desires.
* By inserting 12 Byr as the age of the universe into the
Genesis account, you come up with each "God day" as
being 2 billion years long.
* The 2 billion year "God day" shows that since Adam lived
less than 10000 years ago and God handed man creation on
the 6th "God day", that God is less than 10000 years into
the 7th day. Hence the 7th "God day" isn't super significant
in the ratio calculations compared to 2 billion years.
This also HIGHLIGHTS why God said to keep the 7th day
holy, since God has been in his 7th day for the last
several thousand years.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conceptually...
Genesis matches the ratio of the age of the sun to the age
of the universe. Also matches the age of the moon to
the age of the sun. Genesis says the sun was made after
the universe creation (let there be light). The original
energy expansion (let there be light) matches the big bang
assumed photon energy. The "separated the light from
the darkness" matches the necessary separation needed
to eventually form stars (the expanding universe at
150,000,000m/s requires additional SEPARATION to
get the stars to form). The Genesis account is applicable
since the Gen 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 verses say that
generations of time were occuring in one "God day"
and that God can cruise time extremely fast or extremely
slow as he desires. The Genesis account also has the
Earth receiving days, years, and seasons WHEN the sun
was formed. The plants on "God day" #3 also got covered
over when the moon was formed on "God day" #4. This matches
the loss of atmospheric CO2 (Venus and Mars are presently
95% CO2 and Earth runs only 2%, Earth is between Venus
and Mars) and the match of having oil under ground.
The separation of light from darkness also matches the
required slowing of photons at 300,000,000m/s as they
convert to matter expanding outwards at only 150,000,000m/s.
Genesis also matches in that ocean life first occurred
with the "creature that moveth" and has the proper ratio
to match with ocean fossils showing up more than 3.4 billion
years ago. Genesis also matches in that land animals
showed up after ocean life and has the proper time
frame. Genesis also matches in that it says "and he
made the stars" on the 4 "God day". Planets were considered
stars at the time and had no separate word to describe
them. The New Testament confirms such by saying not
all stars are the same (planets are not stars), and
the timing matches in that science assumes the planets
are the same age as the moon and sun.
"dumb" Hebrews didn't know what matter or energy was,
YET in their description of the creation of the universe,
they just happened to KNOW to say "let there be light".
Light EXPANDS forever outwards (just like our universe)
and is energy. The stuff matches the present theory.
They knew this stuff >>> 3300 years ago <<<
and didn't gunge the account. If you remember your
history, 3300 years ago the Hebrews were basic farming
types and were just setting up a language. They had
no idea about science, what a universe was, what a
star is, what a moon is, or even what the earth is.
The typical statement should have been some gods
throwing glitter balls into the sky for stars each
night (or something equally ridiculous).
God told them and Genesis matches the science results.
And there's Isaiah 53 which fully describes Jesus's
life and why he showed up (to die for our sins).
The proof is not so much the match with the New
Testament in the bible, but that it was written
750 years prior to Jesus AND the Jews rejected
him just like it said they would AND they still do.
Only God could have set up such a prophecy and
insured that it played out.
J. Northwood
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:45:59 -0800, "John P. Boatwright"
<sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
< snip >
>Only God could have set up such a prophecy and
>insured that it played out.
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
they are not certain, and as far as they are certain,
they do not refer to reality."
A. Einstein
John P. Boatwright
Six wrote:
> this post is the most pathetic puddle of groveling I've
> ever written.
I agree, it was fairly immature.
(Yet, Six claims he's the typical atheist)
Proof that God was the source of Genesis in the bible:
(99.9999995% chance of God being the source based on
TIMING alone, much higher if calculating TERM selections)
John P. Boatwright
roger wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > And then inadvertently proved God was right in Genesis.
> Can you show me the missing link of Eden ?
Gen 1 is the 12 billion year history of the universe.
Gen 2:4 on is the LOCAL LAND account of a wilderness
garden that God set up. He whipped up Adam to till the
land. It says such right near the start. It also says
Cain was told "if any man kills you...", who was around?
Other men were already around. Adam on is a LINEAGE
indicator for the people that God attached his name to.
This doesn't say that God rejects other peoples, just
that someone had to hold the account and pass it on.
Anyway, Eden is a LOCAL LAND and had several rivers and land
marks to locate it. If I remember right, Eden was located
near Babylon, about 50 some miles south of Bagdad in Iraq.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof that God was the source of Genesis in the bible:
John P. Boatwright
roger wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > roger wrote:
> > > You, in flesh and blood, could not be standing
> > > anywhere else but on a planet much like our own.
> > > The odds are ZERO for another scenario.
> > Nah, because:
> So you believe that you could be standing, breathing
> inempty space only if your god wanted it that way ?
> Seems like hell to me.
I didn't say that. You said the odds of life showing
up elsewhere is just too extreme to have occurred but
by chance and with no God involved.
It's clear that you're missing the point of the odds
calculation in Genesis.
Those Genesis TIMING odds are similar to YOU guessing
which of ONE out of 208,000,000 stars that would have
a planet surrounding it capable of supporting life.
Then the PHRASES matching in Genesis is similar to
describing attributes of the life you'd find on that
ONE planet guessed right out of 208,000,000 stars.
Get the picture?
John P. Boatwright
* wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> >That's why God had the Genesis account right with
> >208,000,000:1 odds of him being the source based on
> >TIMING alone and 2.4x10^105:1 odds based on TERMS alone
> >using currently measured science data.
> ===>Where in the world did you get those laughable figures
> you keep repeating? Don't you realize how stupid you sound?
It's a simple statistical analysis, Stat 101 in complexity.
* God gave descriptions as "days" that can be LONG PERIODS
of time in Genesis 1.
* The 7th "God day" in Genesis never closed out.
* Major events (moon forming) are listed as occuring in
any one of the seven given "God days".
It's DIRT SIMPLE to verify the time slots aligning between
Genesis in the bible and the science data.
As follows:
99.999999999999...999% (105 nines total)
Conceptually...
Only God could have set up such a prophecy and
insured that it played out.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Shane D. Killian
caps,) but you forgot:
Make up some insane ramblings to twist the Bible to fit your views, and
Reply with "ha ha ha" and ad hominems to anyone who posts evidence
against your views.
Shane D. Killian
merlin wrote:
>
> dear ms or mr salad,
>
> > Thomas put his finger into the holes in his hands and his
> > entire hand into Jesus's side. Obviously at that time, Jesus
> > had NOT yet ascended to the father (did so on the 40th day
> > after). You can't put your fingers into a spirits hands since
> > there's no physical hand.
>
> THEN DEMAND THE SAME. if you really believe this story ask jesus to come
> to you and let you do the same. you will not and cannot.
>
> why do you focus on the death jesus? why is his life not more interesting
> to you that you see salvation in his death rather than in the life he
> lead. refocus if you can and start living. if a susposed dead man can
> come to thomas he can come to you 2.000 years later.
>
called "The Apostle's Creed"), invented in the 5th century or so when
they edited the Bible together.
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, and
in Jesus Christ, his only son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy
Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, siffered under Pontious Pilate, was
crucified, dead, and buried..."
Okay, so Jesus was:
1) Conceived
2) Born
3) Suffered
4) Crucified
5) Died
Let's put this on a timeline:
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
conceived suffered
born crucified
died
Hmmm...isn't there something missing? Something around the middle
somewhere?
Stix
John P. Boatwright posted the following to alt.atheism:
>Six wrote:
>> Sometimes even I consider my idiocy too funny.
>Well of course, you're an Aussie.
This, after calling Shane Killian a racist.
You're a hypocrite beneath contempt, maggot.
merlin
dear shane?
i do not understand what you are saying here and why are the nyceneans?
is all contemporary religious experienced wrapped in the past for you? as
you seem to have invented a time line for a non existant human 2k year
ago.
merlin
Shane D. Killian
merlin wrote:
>
> dear shane?
>
> i do not understand what you are saying here and why are the nyceneans?
>
Christian dogma.
> is all contemporary religious experienced wrapped in the past for you? >
Read Santayana. The ideas they started continue today. Most churches
still recite the Nycene creed.
> > Let's put this on a timeline:
> >
> > +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
> > conceived suffered
> > born crucified
> > died
> >
> > Hmmm...isn't there something missing? Something around the middle
> > somewhere?
The idea of this was to illustrate something quite important that has
been left out: His teachings. His life. His works. The whole reason he
came here.
merlin
dear sahne,
i agree, his life is his most important message. when we all start trying
to study how jesus lived and the choices he made everyday that we too must
make, his life becomes far more important than his death. as we are all
alive and struggling with many of the same issues in our lives.
reward after death is no replacement for attempting to understand jesus'
life while in a body.
merlin
> >
> The Nycenes compiled and edited the Bible and laid the groundwork for
> Christian dogma.
>
> > is all contemporary religious experienced wrapped in the past for you? >
> Read Santayana. The ideas they started continue today. Most churches
> still recite the Nycene creed.
>
> > > Let's put this on a timeline:
> > >
> > > +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
> > > conceived suffered
> > > born crucified
> > > died
> > >
> > > Hmmm...isn't there something missing? Something around the middle
> > > somewhere?
>
> The idea of this was to illustrate something quite important that has
> been left out: His teachings. His life. His works. The whole reason he
> came here.
>
i could not agree with you more,
merlin
John P. Boatwright
Douglas & Jennie Jackson wrote:
> In our last episode of *[alt.atheism]*, John P. "Will Twist Logic and
> Science For Jeezus!" Boatwright wrote:
> > That's why God had the Genesis account correctly given
> > to 208,000,000:1 odds of him being the source:
> > http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/genesis.htm
> You honestly think that because you refer to a web page of
> exceedingly dubious merit *of your own twisted devising* that anyone
> is going to take you at all seriously?
Saves typing all that stuff in.
> I don't think so!
Ya it does.
It takes a while to type all that stuff.
> If, just for once, you were able to muster up the energy
> to remove your head from your own fundament, I'm sure that
> you'll be more able to see the world for what it really is.
God's creation?
Ya, guess so.
And that's what's so cool about Stat 101, you simple do what
the course says to do, look up the raw data, compare the
alignment and wham! ... standard statistical method shows
that God gave the account.
TIMING: 99.99999952% chance God gave the account.
TERMS : 99.99999999999...99999% (105 nines) chance God
gave the account.
It's simple to check too. You only need that Stat 101
course to verify the stuff. All the rest of the data
is easily accessable both on the internet and in
encyclopedias.
bar...@cadvision.com
The only reason I see People Questioning and fight the idea of a God
and a Very Alive Jesus Christ is because they reveal within a person
the darkness that hides. Jesus did the most spiritual "Damage" to the
unbelievers by revealing their bad habbits. NOBODY Like to have their
mistakes pointed out. As long as you are not aware of your sins you'll
continue happily in your evil ways. but the day someone pulls out the
bible or uses christ's words that expose a man's sins that's when the
trouble starts, People become offended, angry & upset enz...
The Christ is the light in this dark world.
let's say if you were in a dark room trying to walk around you'll bang
your feet and your knees, stumble over things you cannot see, so you
try to feel around with you feet before you walk and sometimes you
have to run into things before we acknowledge that object being there.
Sameway in real life situation, we try to live a happy life trying to
make day by day running into all sorts of situations. Some of them we
make it through some we don't others makes us slow down and even get
you depressed. What do you know? All you're trying to do is live a
good life and you notice that only bad things are happening to you
eventhough you're trying to live a righteous life while other who
steal, kill, rob and destroy they seem to get away with things they
do. But Christ came down to shows us with his light that these thieves
& robbers are the one who are slowly digging their own graves. When
Christ came into the world he revealed a lot about the devil and his
evil ways trying to destroy mankinds relationship with God their
Father. Christ shows us the dark objects in the room (the devil in
life) over which we stumble yet can't see.
John 8:12
I am the Light of the World, whoever follows me
will NEVER walk in Darkness but will have the
Light of Life..
in a dark room (people's christ less Lives) when you use a flash
light (christ) you can see the object (the devil) that caused you to
stumble all this time.
Seriously, I never used to believe in anyform of god or anything but
one day I stumbled so hard that my head went through the wall making a
hole through which light shone in to my life and now I a, afraid to
Say that there is no God or to deny our Lord Jesus Christ. I am asking
you to forget the way christians are because they ain't perfect. Take
the bible and read it for your self in a non judging manner and forget
what you've been told by others, read it for yourself and if you are
truthfull to yourself you will see the light in the bible. I know
First Thing Christian will do is verbally through into hell. No,
that's the wrong way of doing things, First acknowledge the law then
you become guilty, how can you be guilty of a crime when you don't
know the law that makes you guilty.
Amit.
Shane D. Killian
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Douglas & Jennie Jackson wrote:
>
> > You honestly think that because you refer to a web page of
> > exceedingly dubious merit *of your own twisted devising* that anyone
> > is going to take you at all seriously?
>
> Saves typing all that stuff in.
>
webpage which you claim is a picture of Jesus taken by the Hubble Space
Telescope? Eh?
Shane D. Killian
Thanks...It's nice to be reminded that there are more of us out there
than it seems. The hypocrites are just too vocal...
merlin
dear sir or madame baruaa:
> The only reason I see People Questioning and fight the idea of a God
> and a Very Alive Jesus Christ is because they reveal within a person
> the darkness that hides.
more preaching? you have assumed the intentions of another person here.
you are assuming YOU are right and everyone else is wrong. you have made
a practice of seeing others in a bad light? please change. please talk
about love instead of darkness.
where you see shadows and darkness i see different shades of light.
merlin
Shane D. Killian
Kevin and Carleen Lucas wrote:
>
> Make up some insane ramblings to twist the Bible to fit your views, and
>
> Reply with "ha ha ha" and ad hominems to anyone who posts evidence
> against your views.
>
>
I have never replied "ha ha ha" to anyone. That's Boaty's favorite
response.
>(except for the Bible part,
> since I doubt you have read it)
>
And what, in all the discussions I have had here, int he numerous
quotations I have presented here, and the numerous scholarly sources
hbehind them that I have presented, has led you to believe that I am so
unfamiliar with the Bible to have never read it?
> ...........oh yeah, by the way, the word is
> "homonym"...please be careful to spell your refutations correctly.
>
Who said anything about homonyms? I was referring to ad hominem attacks,
like what Boaty always does.
I see no problem with using homonyms in replies (no profit, either).
This is a troll, right?
Shane D. Killian
Kevin and Carleen Lucas wrote:
>
> than it seems. The hypocrites are just too vocal...
>
> vocal to their views........oops, I apologize.....you meant only we are
> hypocritical and vocal, my apologies.....
>
Look, I have no idea who you are (or indeed why you have suddenly chosen
to unleash your childish flames on me), and since we have never
corresponded, I have neither reason nor inkling to place you in
particular in the category of "hypocrites," as in, whose who claim
allegiance to Jesus but don't follow his teachings.
So, why are you taking this personally? Does the epithet "hypocrite"
strike a nerve somewhere?
Shane D. Killian
Shane D. Killian
Shane D. Killian
Shane D. Killian
Kevin and Carleen Lucas wrote:
>
> unfortunate that the other side has you to argue their case. Is there
> anything we (Christians) can do to win you over to our side...I guess
> forgiveness and eternal life aren't enough......how about a case of Fresca
> also............please, give us a counteroffer.
>
Look, maybe you ought to read *my* posts and not just Boatwright's
responses to them.
Listen very carefully: I...AM...A...CHRISTIAN.
Why do so many people have a problem with this concept?
Here I have made a post where I stated that I believe that the most
important thing about Jesus's life is his teachings, what we can learn
from them, and how, from them, we might achieve the Kingdom of Heaven.
And I think this business about shrouds and "God Days" and homosexuals
just might be contraindicative to that collective goal.
fungus
Shane D. Killian wrote:
> I have neither reason nor inkling to place you in
> particular in the category of "hypocrites," as in, whose who claim
> allegiance to Jesus but don't follow his teachings.
>
Do you own a Dictionary? Try using it....
--
<\___/>
/ O O \ My web site: http://artlum.com/
\_____/ FTB. To e-mail me use: ftb@the_above_domain.com
Kevin and Carleen Lucas
AMEN, you go bro......
John P. Boatwright wrote in message <3523D6...@teleport.com>...
>Douglas & Jennie Jackson wrote:
>
>> Science For Jeezus!" Boatwright wrote:
>
>> > That's why God had the Genesis account correctly given
>> > to 208,000,000:1 odds of him being the source:
>> > http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/genesis.htm
>
>> exceedingly dubious merit *of your own twisted devising* that anyone
>> is going to take you at all seriously?
>
>Saves typing all that stuff in.
>