Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview
Suzanne
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:arvvb4pap150hf3m7...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 07:35:49 -0700, "Mike Painter"
> <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>Suzanne wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Scientific results, no. The archaeologists are the science
>>> persons, not "the majority" that you claim are for your
>>> date.
>>
>>This thread contains this quote from Suzanne,
>>"You can find Wood's report, May 1, 2008 on the Internet. It is called
>>Did
>>the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence"
>>
>>I did look it up and I did read it and it DOES say that the majority of
>>scholars DO NOT agree with the dates Suzanne likes. With others I would
>>ask
>>if they actually read it, with her it wouldn't matter.
>>"Most scholars will reject the possibility that the Israelites destroyed
>>Jericho in about 1400 B.C.E."
>>
>>"One major problem remains: the date, 1400 B.C.E. Most scholars will
>>reject
>>the possibility that the Israelites destroyed Jericho in about 1400 B.C.E.
>>because of their belief that Israel did not emerge in Canaan until about
>>150
>>to 200 years later, at the end of the Late Bronze II period.
>>
>>A minority of scholars agrees with the Biblical chronology, which places
>>the
>>Israelite entry into Canaan in about 1400 B.C.E. The dispute between these
>>two views is already well-known to BAR readers.**
>>
>>But recently, new evidence has come to light suggesting that Israel was
>>resident in Canaan throughout the Late Bronze II period. As new data
>>emerge
>>and as old data are reevaluated, it will undoubtedly require a reappraisal
>>of current theories regarding the date and the nature of the emergence of
>>Israel in Canaan."
>>http://tinyurl.com/5ue58g
>
>
> And since that was written there has been a reappraisal, but the
> verdict has been that the dates do not need adjusting.
>
> Israel did not conquer the area, rather they emerged from the existing
> population about 1250-1200BC. In other words Israelites are Canaanites
> from the outset.
>
> Jericho, on the other hand, was destroyed around 1600BC and by
> earthquake not war.
>
The first temple, which is the Temple of Solomon, was
in about 1000 B.C., and the columns that came from
the tunnel under the Temple Mount have been dated to
the first temple.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
And that affects things in what way?
You know, this is one of your most annoying habits - suddenly raising
something that has sweet FA to do with what is being talked about.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Suzanne
that Solomon built? It is in great, great, great detail in the
Bible as to what it looked like, as also is David's palace
that was built with the cedars of Lebanon. I know they
were real, but you don't.
>
> You know, this is one of your most annoying habits - suddenly raising
> something that has sweet FA to do with what is being talked about.
>
>
Suzanne
Mike Painter
><snip>
> Why would the Bible be false if you find the very temple
> that Solomon built? It is in great, great, great detail in the
> Bible as to what it looked like, as also is David's palace
> that was built with the cedars of Lebanon. I know they
> were real, but you don't.
>>
Why would Doc Savage be false if New York City exists and Ford Tri-motors
are still around?
Ye Old One
Does the existence of 221B Baker Street mean that Sherlock Holmes is a
real person?
>It is in great, great, great detail in the
>Bible as to what it looked like,
Well of course, since at the time the bible was written it was still
there.
> as also is David's palace
>that was built with the cedars of Lebanon. I know they
>were real, but you don't.
No, you think they are real, you have no way of knowing.
>>
>> You know, this is one of your most annoying habits - suddenly raising
>> something that has sweet FA to do with what is being talked about.
>>
>Sure, I'm a regular wart.
Get treated for it.
>>
>Suzanne
>
--
Bob.
Mike Painter
<snip>
>>>
>> Why would the Bible be false if you find the very temple
>> that Solomon built?
>
> Does the existence of 221B Baker Street mean that Sherlock Holmes is a
> real person?
While the superb biography of Doc Watson does include Sherlock Holmes among
his near relatives (on his mothers side and she was related to the
Greystokes) and while there is indeed a Baker street, it is a sad fact that
there was no 221B at the time Holmes was alive.
Watson probably used this address to avoid extensive crowds who wanted to
see the man.
>
>> It is in great, great, great detail in the
>> Bible as to what it looked like,
>
> Well of course, since at the time the bible was written it was still
> there.
>
>> as also is David's palace
>> that was built with the cedars of Lebanon. I know they
>> were real, but you don't.
>
> No, you think they are real, you have no way of knowing.
>
Something Suzanne has not mentioned in a while is that God talks directly
to her on a regular basis. Exactly what he says depends on the post you read
(sometimes it's just "yes or "no") but if god said it it must be true. Or
not.
Ye Old One
<mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One wrote:
><snip>
>>>>
>>> Why would the Bible be false if you find the very temple
>>> that Solomon built?
>>
>> Does the existence of 221B Baker Street mean that Sherlock Holmes is a
>> real person?
>
>While the superb biography of Doc Watson does include Sherlock Holmes among
>his near relatives (on his mothers side and she was related to the
>Greystokes) and while there is indeed a Baker street, it is a sad fact that
>there was no 221B at the time Holmes was alive.
That is correct, though there is now :)
>Watson probably used this address to avoid extensive crowds who wanted to
>see the man.
>>
>>> It is in great, great, great detail in the
>>> Bible as to what it looked like,
>>
>> Well of course, since at the time the bible was written it was still
>> there.
>>
>>> as also is David's palace
>>> that was built with the cedars of Lebanon. I know they
>>> were real, but you don't.
>>
>> No, you think they are real, you have no way of knowing.
>>
> Something Suzanne has not mentioned in a while is that God talks directly
>to her on a regular basis.
This is, of course, a delusion. It is funny how two people with the
same mental illness will find one being treated because it is a white
rabbit that talks to them, while the other gets away with it because
it is "god" that talks to them. Never managed to work that one out
myself.
> Exactly what he says depends on the post you read
>(sometimes it's just "yes or "no") but if god said it it must be true. Or
>not.
As I've said before, I really do feel sorry for her.
--
Bob.
Suzanne
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ougGk.2517$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
Doc Savage doesn't explain Ford Tri-motors in detail.
He also doesn't contain New York City. But I like the
your ingenuity.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
The Bible does explain Solomon's temple, in gigantic,
clear detail. So much so that it can be identified by that
intricate and elaborate amount of information.
>
>>It is in great, great, great detail in the
>>Bible as to what it looked like,
>
> Well of course, since at the time the bible was written it was still
> there.
>
the biblical detail, the Bible tells the truth as it happens,
brilliant person.
>
>> as also is David's palace
>>that was built with the cedars of Lebanon. I know they
>>were real, but you don't.
>
> No, you think they are real, you have no way of knowing.
>
voice of the Lord, me lad.
>
>>> You know, this is one of your most annoying habits - suddenly raising
>>> something that has sweet FA to do with what is being talked about.
>>>
>>Sure, I'm a regular wart.
>
> Get treated for it.
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> Ye Old One wrote:
> <snip>
>>>>
>>> Why would the Bible be false if you find the very temple
>>> that Solomon built?
>>
>> Does the existence of 221B Baker Street mean that Sherlock Holmes is a
>> real person?
>
> Something Suzanne has not mentioned in a while is that God talks directly
> to her on a regular basis. Exactly what he says depends on the post you
> read (sometimes it's just "yes or "no") but if god said it it must be
> true. Or not.
John 10:27:
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me"
>
Suzanne
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
So, in your theology, God doesn't want to save everyone.
Mark VandeWettering
I always thought it was an odd metaphor to use. I never aspired to
be a sheep. Why not say "My children hear my voice, and I know them,
and they follow me"? Why does your religion attempt to portray God's
children as mindless beasts? Isn't that a bit dehumanizing?
Mark
> Suzanne
Caranx latus
I can think of only two fates for sheep that are being shepherded:
slaughter or shearing. I don't think that either of these connotes
particularly well for the sheep.
John Wilkins
Some are also milked.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Suzanne
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vible4h732dtf0h8k...@4ax.com...
everyone to be saved, according to the Bible...
2 Peter 3:9:
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men
count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing
that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
Anyone can come to him and put their trust in him.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrngelf9r.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
God's religion that we accept. He additionally does say
what you said, since it is in several verses that he speaks
about that. As for us being sheep, though, you are right,
it is not particularly flattering if you know sheep, because
besides being cuddly and soft, they are also dumb about
some things. It's said they will follow anything, even a
wolf, and that some have been known to almost drown,
looking up at the rain. The reason we are called "sheep,"
is not because people are not intelligent, but because we
are very dependent upon a shepherd to lead us the right
way.
>
Suzanne
>
Caranx latus
> Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > >> "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > >>news:oXpGk.3987$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> > >>> Ye Old One wrote:
> > >>> <snip>
> > >>>>> Why would the Bible be false if you find the very temple
> > >>>>> that Solomon built?
> > >>>> Does the existence of 221B Baker Street mean that Sherlock Holmes is a
> > >>>> real person?
> > >> (snip)
> > >>> Something Suzanne has not mentioned in a while is that God talks directly
> > >>> to her on a regular basis. Exactly what he says depends on the post you
> > >>> read (sometimes it's just "yes or "no") but if god said it it must be
> > >>> true. Or not.
> > >> Well, my goodness, I'll accomodate you on that one.
> > >> John 10:27:
> > >> "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
> > >> follow me"
>
> > > I always thought it was an odd metaphor to use. I never aspired to
> > > be a sheep. Why not say "My children hear my voice, and I know them,
> > > and they follow me"? Why does your religion attempt to portray God's
> > > children as mindless beasts? Isn't that a bit dehumanizing?
>
> > I can think of only two fates for sheep that are being shepherded:
> > slaughter or shearing. I don't think that either of these connotes
> > particularly well for the sheep.
>
> Some are also milked.
Fair enough, but it doesn't strike me as an improvement.
John Wilkins
I didn't think it was...
The sheep metaphor suggests that God:man::farmer:domesticated animals.
It implies that God uses us like a farmer uses sheep/cows/chattel. We
are property not souls with standing.
We therefore have no rights other than what the deity wants to do with
us, and that means if the deity wants to slaughter us, s/he will. Not a
comforting thought. Possibly true, for all I know (seems to match up
with experience, for a start), but hardly an all-loving God (unless the
sense of "love" here is as used in sentences like "I really love roast
lamb").
Suzanne
"Caranx latus" <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:gcefba$3fi$1...@aioe.org...
about the demise of the sheep, but about the relationship
of a caring shepherd towards us, and our relationship with
him.
>
Suzanne
Caranx latus
So the reasons why the shepherd cares for the sheep doesn't get factored
in anywhere?
Suzanne
"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1iofzrs.1p16i9xp5edp1N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
benefits and sometimes we are called on to do things like
what you are suggesting. But most of the time we do not
have to do those kinds of things. The benefits far outweigh
the costs, and they are eternal. Studying the Bible is quite
an adventure too. Take for example, the story of Caleb
after the Exodus wanting his inheritance of Hebron, which
God granted that he should have. Hebron is a real place,
and I believe this story is real. But Caleb, an older man,
had to fight uphill against the giants. He won because
as he fought, he already had the deed in his pocket,
because the apportionment had been given to him. The
giants that he had to fight were the grown children
of the giant named Anak. Caleb won. The philosophical
aspect of this story is that the names of these giants
had meanings in ancient times. Turns out that their names
are the same as the three questions asked by philosophers
through all the ages. Shechai means "Who am I?" Ahiman
means "What am I?" And Talmai translates to mean
"What I can do." (Alfred Jones Dictionary of Old Testament
Names). If you slay these giants in your own life, then you
will accomplish your goals.
>
Suzanne
Mark VandeWettering
Pfft. It's hard to imagine the combination of arrogance and the denial
of personal responsibility that this statement entails.
> He additionally does say
> what you said, since it is in several verses that he speaks
> about that. As for us being sheep, though, you are right,
> it is not particularly flattering if you know sheep, because
> besides being cuddly and soft, they are also dumb about
> some things. It's said they will follow anything, even a
> wolf, and that some have been known to almost drown,
> looking up at the rain. The reason we are called "sheep,"
> is not because people are not intelligent, but because we
> are very dependent upon a shepherd to lead us the right
> way.
The thing is, you don't have a shepard. There are dogs nipping
at your heels, and you are driven here and there, all over the
place, in whatever direction seems to be the most convenient
at the time.
> Suzanne
Mark VandeWettering
A shepherd cares for sheep because they are food and clothing. Nothing
more.
Mark
>>
> Suzanne
>
Michael Siemon
"Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote:
Bizarre; you are a Christian as a result of a cost/benefit analysis?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
And yet you claim your gods wiped out humanity except for eight
people. Both claims cannot be true.
> but that all should come to repentance."
>Anyone can come to him and put their trust in him.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
When I think of humans who are termed "sheep" I think of a person who
is too easily influenced or led. Someone with no brain of their own
who just follows others.
Sounds EXACTLY like you.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
But then, we already know how gullible you are.
> But Caleb, an older man,
>had to fight uphill against the giants. He won because
>as he fought, he already had the deed in his pocket,
>because the apportionment had been given to him. The
>giants that he had to fight were the grown children
>of the giant named Anak. Caleb won. The philosophical
>aspect of this story is that the names of these giants
>had meanings in ancient times. Turns out that their names
>are the same as the three questions asked by philosophers
>through all the ages. Shechai means "Who am I?" Ahiman
>means "What am I?" And Talmai translates to mean
>"What I can do." (Alfred Jones Dictionary of Old Testament
>Names). If you slay these giants in your own life, then you
>will accomplish your goals.
You really are a silly plonker.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
So who does your god worship?
?He additionally does say
>what you said, since it is in several verses that he speaks
>about that. As for us being sheep, though, you are right,
>it is not particularly flattering if you know sheep, because
>besides being cuddly and soft, they are also dumb about
>some things. It's said they will follow anything, even a
>wolf, and that some have been known to almost drown,
>looking up at the rain. The reason we are called "sheep,"
>is not because people are not intelligent, but because we
>are very dependent upon a shepherd to lead us the right
>way.
Yep - you really are that deluded.
>>
>Suzanne
>>
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
What?
>The Bible does explain Solomon's temple, in gigantic,
>clear detail.
So what - it may well have existed at the time the stories were first
written down, you give any work of fiction a greater credence is you
use real places as settings. I've been to 221B Baker Street, I've also
been to King Arthur's Castle - neither make the fiction real.
> So much so that it can be identified by that
>intricate and elaborate amount of information.
>>
>>>It is in great, great, great detail in the
>>>Bible as to what it looked like,
>>
>> Well of course, since at the time the bible was written it was still
>> there.
>>
>Which means that if archaeologists find it, and do so by
>the biblical detail, the Bible tells the truth as it happens,
>brilliant person.
Not at all. I ask again, does the existence of 221B Baker Street mean
that everything in the stories about Sherlock Holmes is real?
>>
>>> as also is David's palace
>>>that was built with the cedars of Lebanon. I know they
>>>were real, but you don't.
>>
>> No, you think they are real, you have no way of knowing.
>>
>Aye, some things can be known via the still, small
>voice of the Lord, me lad.
You do talk some rubbish.
>>
>>>> You know, this is one of your most annoying habits - suddenly raising
>>>> something that has sweet FA to do with what is being talked about.
>>>>
>>>Sure, I'm a regular wart.
>>
>> Get treated for it.
>>
>"My strength is made perfect in weakness" - 2 Corinthians 12:9
Well you mental weakness is well know.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Tiny Bulcher
Beware the End of Days, lest ye be cast into the lake of mint sauce!
(see also Pink Floyd, /Sheep/).
Tiny Bulcher
Welll ... (insert Welsh/NZ/Australian jokes here)
John Wilkins
> flus cwæ› John Wilkins:
"To serve Man". Also, that lake of fire sounds supiciously like a large
fondue set.
Ilas
news:4MAGk.2637$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
> "Caranx latus" <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:gcefba$3fi$1...@aioe.org...
>> I can think of only two fates for sheep that are being shepherded:
>> slaughter or shearing. I don't think that either of these connotes
>> particularly well for the sheep.
>>
> The concentration of the sheep to shepherd image is not
> about the demise of the sheep, but about the relationship
> of a caring shepherd towards us, and our relationship with
> him.
I have a relative who is a shepherd (well, a sheep farmer) on the English-
Scottish border. Do you know why he does what he does? I'll give you a clue
- we had a fantastic shoulder of lamb on Sunday night.
Ilas
news:JyxGk.4084$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
And I drove past Alnwick Castle the other day. You know what? In gigantic
clear detail, it was the spitting image of Hogwarts from the Harry Potter
films. I suppose that must mean Harry Potter is real.
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> > I can think of only two fates for sheep that are being shepherded:
> > slaughter or shearing. I don't think that either of these connotes
> > particularly well for the sheep.
>
> Some are also milked.
> --
Que joke about why Scotsmen wear kilts.
Walter Bushell
<mlsiemon-1F0D52...@C-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
That is likely to lead her to the fondue set.
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Now it make sense. It's still a cheesy interpretation of which I am not
fond duef.
Walter Bushell
Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
Some of us can't keep that image out of our mind when talking about
shepherds and sheep. Being D-G himself Jesus should have come up with
better imagery.
Walter Bushell
"Tiny Bulcher" <alyc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Texan, Idaho, Scots and so on.
It's said that sheep in Scotland can hear a zipper from a mile away.
Hence the kilts.
Walter Bushell
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> This is, of course, a delusion. It is funny how two people with the
> same mental illness will find one being treated because it is a white
> rabbit that talks to them, while the other gets away with it because
> it is "god" that talks to them. Never managed to work that one out
> myself.
If you can get enough people to support your belief in the White Rabbit
then by Shrink rules you are *not* crazy. "Significant social support"
for a belief invalidates that belief as a mark of insanity.
Caranx latus
> "Mark VandeWettering" <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:slrngelf9r.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
>> >> "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
The shepherd leads the sheep in the direction that is ultimately most
beneficial for the shepherd, not for the sheep.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Ah! I get it now :)
--
Bob.
AC
Jesus: Now you see, you're all sort of like rocks in a collection, and you see,
God's like the rock collector...
Crowd: <confused looks>
Jesus: Okay okay, it's more like you're candy bars, and God's the store
manager...
Crowd: <murmuring>
Jesus: Bad example, bad example... hmmm... I've got it! You're all like
butterflies, and God's the guy with the net and the book with the pins in
it... Yes, Simon Peter, I know they're getting angry. This is a lot more
difficult than the parable of Edomite and the Angry Gaulish Whore... Okay,
look, it's simple people, you're like sheep, and God's the shephard who
looks out for you.
Crowd: Oh yeah... that makes sense... I like sheep, they're nice.
Jesus: Excellent! Now let me explain salvation to you. It'll be so simple
no one will never have a disagreement about it!
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
Harry K
> "Caranx latus" <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:gcefba$3fi$1...@aioe.org...
>
>
>
> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Looks to me the same as the shepherd slaughtering his sheep when the
time is due. What is the difference between that and your God?
Harry K
Harry K
Let's see. A shepherd takes good care of his sheep so they will be
available for slaughter in due time. How is that any different from
your God? Seems he was _very_ good at the slaughtering but a bit
careless about waiting for the 'due time' bit.
Harry K
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
>
>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:vible4h732dtf0h8k...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:11:15 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote
>> in talk.origins:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>news:oXpGk.3987$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would the Bible be false if you find the very temple
>>>>>> that Solomon built?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the existence of 221B Baker Street mean that Sherlock Holmes is a
>>>>> real person?
>>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>> Something Suzanne has not mentioned in a while is that God talks
>>>> directly
>>>> to her on a regular basis. Exactly what he says depends on the post you
>>>> read (sometimes it's just "yes or "no") but if god said it it must be
>>>> true. Or not.
>>>Well, my goodness, I'll accomodate you on that one.
>>>John 10:27:
>>>"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
>>>follow me"
>>>>
>>>Suzanne
>>
>> So, in your theology, God doesn't want to save everyone.
>>
>No, what you are saying is not right becasue God does want
>everyone to be saved, according to the Bible...
>2 Peter 3:9:
>"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men
>count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing
>that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
>Anyone can come to him and put their trust in him.
>>
>Suzanne
You are trying to have it both ways then. You make excuses for God not
contacting people, but you say He wants everyone to follow Him. Sorry,
but you are being inconsistent. If He is capable of contacting people,
as you claim, but does not do so, your doctrine is in error. If He does
not do so because He cannot, your doctrine is in error.
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
>
>"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:1iofzrs.1p16i9xp5edp1N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
>> Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 6, 10:04 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>>> > Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> > > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>>> > > > On 2008-10-07, Suzanne <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>>> > > >> "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> > > >>news:oXpGk.3987$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> > > >>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>> > > >>> <snip>
>>> > > >>>>> Why would the Bible be false if you find the very temple
>>> > > >>>>> that Solomon built?
>>> > > >>>> Does the existence of 221B Baker Street mean that Sherlock
>>> > > >>>> Holmes
>>> > > >>>> is a real person?
>>> > > >> (snip)
>>> > > >>> Something Suzanne has not mentioned in a while is that God talks
>>> > > >>> directly to her on a regular basis. Exactly what he says depends
>>> > > >>> on the post you read (sometimes it's just "yes or "no") but if
>>> > > >>> god
>>> > > >>> said it it must be true. Or not.
>>> > > >> Well, my goodness, I'll accomodate you on that one.
>>> > > >> John 10:27:
>>> > > >> "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
>>> > > >> follow me"
>>> >
>>> > > > I always thought it was an odd metaphor to use. I never aspired to
>>> > > > be a sheep. Why not say "My children hear my voice, and I know
>>> > > > them,
>>> > > > and they follow me"? Why does your religion attempt to portray
>>> > > > God's
>>> > > > children as mindless beasts? Isn't that a bit dehumanizing?
>>> >
>>> > > I can think of only two fates for sheep that are being shepherded:
>>> > > slaughter or shearing. I don't think that either of these connotes
>>> > > particularly well for the sheep.
>>> >
>>> > Some are also milked.
>>>
>>> Fair enough, but it doesn't strike me as an improvement.
>>
>> I didn't think it was...
>>
>> The sheep metaphor suggests that God:man::farmer:domesticated animals.
>> It implies that God uses us like a farmer uses sheep/cows/chattel. We
>> are property not souls with standing.
>>
>> We therefore have no rights other than what the deity wants to do with
>> us, and that means if the deity wants to slaughter us, s/he will. Not a
>> comforting thought. Possibly true, for all I know (seems to match up
>> with experience, for a start), but hardly an all-loving God (unless the
>> sense of "love" here is as used in sentences like "I really love roast
>> lamb").
>>
>Being a Christian is like signing on to a company that has
>benefits and sometimes we are called on to do things like
>what you are suggesting. But most of the time we do not
>have to do those kinds of things. The benefits far outweigh
>the costs, and they are eternal.
You claim that, but like a company that hides all of the information
about the retirement program, there isn't a shred of evidence that there
is any payoff. You are being played.
>Studying the Bible is quite
>an adventure too.
Absolutely, people get out of the Bible whatever they want. Bloodthirsty
killers are as cheered by the Bible as pacifists who are disposed to
believe it. Those who are not, are not persuaded because the Bible is a
collection of stories made up to help the priests control the people.
Remember how God whined about having to let Israel have a king?
>Take for example, the story of Caleb
>after the Exodus wanting his inheritance of Hebron, which
>God granted that he should have. Hebron is a real place,
>and I believe this story is real.
London is a real place. Do you believe that Harry Potter is real?
>But Caleb, an older man,
>had to fight uphill against the giants. He won because
>as he fought, he already had the deed in his pocket,
>because the apportionment had been given to him. The
>giants that he had to fight were the grown children
>of the giant named Anak. Caleb won. The philosophical
>aspect of this story is that the names of these giants
>had meanings in ancient times. Turns out that their names
>are the same as the three questions asked by philosophers
>through all the ages. Shechai means "Who am I?" Ahiman
>means "What am I?" And Talmai translates to mean
>"What I can do." (Alfred Jones Dictionary of Old Testament
>Names). If you slay these giants in your own life, then you
>will accomplish your goals.
So, what were the meanings of the names? Do you understand that having
such meaning, particularly if the whole point is to teach a lesson, is
evidence that the story is not based in fact at all?
Susan S
<pr...@panix.com>:
I agree; yer on to something there.
Susan Silberstein
John Wilkins
> In talk.origins I read this message from Walter Bushell
> <pr...@panix.com>:
>
> >In article <1iogls9.1c4cwj57j7ipbN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>,
> > j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> >> Tiny Bulcher <alyc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > ï¬≠us cwÜ╺ John Wilkins:
She said, bree-zily.
Suzanne
that I "make excuses for God" is crazy.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:kv7me4h6chiomviu5...@4ax.com...
>
>>
> people. Both claims cannot be true.
>
Noah was a preacher of righteousness for at least 100
years before the flood came. Those people did have a
chance. It was told in Genesis 3:15 that God promised
to send a man born of only a woman, and that would
be the Seed/Redeemer of mankind. He died even for
those that perished in the flood, had they trusted in the
promise of the Seed/Redeemer.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Michael Siemon" <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:mlsiemon-1F0D52...@C-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
>> news:1iofzrs.1p16i9xp5edp1N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
>> >
>> >> On Oct 6, 10:04 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>> >> > Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> > > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> >> > > > On 2008-10-07, Suzanne <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>> >> > > >>news:oXpGk.3987$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> >> > > >>> Ye Old One wrote:
>> >> > > >>> <snip>
>> >> > > >>>>> Why would the Bible be false if you find the very temple
>> >> > > >>>>> that Solomon built?
>> >> > > >>>> Does the existence of 221B Baker Street mean that Sherlock
>> >> > > >>>> Holmes
>> >> > > >>>> is a real person?
>> >> > > >> (snip)
>> >> > > >>> Something Suzanne has not mentioned in a while is that God
>> >> > > >>> talks
>> >> > > >>> directly to her on a regular basis. Exactly what he says
>> >> > > >>> depends
>> >> > > >>> on the post you read (sometimes it's just "yes or "no") but if
>> >> > > >>> god
>> >> > > >>> said it it must be true. Or not.
>> >> > > >> Well, my goodness, I'll accomodate you on that one.
>> >> > > >> John 10:27:
>> >> > > >> "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
>> >> > > >> follow me"
>> >> >
>> >> > > > to
>> >> > > > them,
>> >> > > > and they follow me"? Why does your religion attempt to portray
>> >> > > > God's
>> >> > > > children as mindless beasts? Isn't that a bit dehumanizing?
>> >> >
>> >> > > I can think of only two fates for sheep that are being shepherded:
>> >> > > slaughter or shearing. I don't think that either of these connotes
>> >> > > particularly well for the sheep.
>> >> >
>> >> > Some are also milked.
>> >>
>> >> Fair enough, but it doesn't strike me as an improvement.
>> >
>> > I didn't think it was...
>> >
>> > The sheep metaphor suggests that God:man::farmer:domesticated animals.
>> > It implies that God uses us like a farmer uses sheep/cows/chattel. We
>> > are property not souls with standing.
>> >
>> > We therefore have no rights other than what the deity wants to do with
>> > us, and that means if the deity wants to slaughter us, s/he will. Not a
>> > comforting thought. Possibly true, for all I know (seems to match up
>> > with experience, for a start), but hardly an all-loving God (unless the
>> > sense of "love" here is as used in sentences like "I really love roast
>> > lamb").
>> >
>> benefits and sometimes we are called on to do things like
>> what you are suggesting. But most of the time we do not
>> have to do those kinds of things. The benefits far outweigh
>> an adventure too. Take for example, the story of Caleb
>> after the Exodus wanting his inheritance of Hebron, which
>> God granted that he should have. Hebron is a real place,
>> had to fight uphill against the giants. He won because
>> as he fought, he already had the deed in his pocket,
>> because the apportionment had been given to him. The
>> giants that he had to fight were the grown children
>> of the giant named Anak. Caleb won. The philosophical
>> aspect of this story is that the names of these giants
>> had meanings in ancient times. Turns out that their names
>> are the same as the three questions asked by philosophers
>> through all the ages. Shechai means "Who am I?" Ahiman
>> means "What am I?" And Talmai translates to mean
>> "What I can do." (Alfred Jones Dictionary of Old Testament
>> Names). If you slay these giants in your own life, then you
>> will accomplish your goals.
>> >
>
> Bizarre; you are a Christian as a result of a cost/benefit analysis?
>
analysis.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Harry K" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0137171b-4e1a-495b...@a19g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Harry K
>
From Suzanne:
I just made a difference in what I replied. The picture of
followers of Jesus being like sheep has to do with the
relationship they have with the one and only Best
Shepherd. It is not a relationship that ends in him killing
them, it ends with him saving them. This shepherd laid
his life down so that these sheep could be rescued. He
gave his life in payment for our sins so that we could
go to heaven through trusting in what he did for us.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-5F3304....@news.panix.com...
to separate the sheep from the old goats.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
From Suzanne:
This shepherd is the shepherd of all shepherds, and he is also
known as the Great Shepherd. He does not take care of the
sheep only so that they can be killed. He takes care of them
because he loves them.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrngelsl0.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...>> "Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrngelf9r.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...>>>> "Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:oXpGk.3987$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would the Bible be false if you find the very temple
>>>>>>> that Solomon built?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the existence of 221B Baker Street mean that Sherlock Holmes is
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> real person?
>>>>>
>>>> (snip)
>>>>> Something Suzanne has not mentioned in a while is that God talks
>>>>> directly
>>>>> to her on a regular basis. Exactly what he says depends on the post
>>>>> you
>>>>> read (sometimes it's just "yes or "no") but if god said it it must be
>>>>> true. Or not.
>>>> Well, my goodness, I'll accomodate you on that one.
>>>> John 10:27:
>>>> "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
>>>> follow me"
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I always thought it was an odd metaphor to use. I never aspired to
>>> be a sheep. Why not say "My children hear my voice, and I know them,
>>> and they follow me"? Why does your religion attempt to portray God's
>>> children as mindless beasts? Isn't that a bit dehumanizing?
>>>
>>>
>> Mark, it's not "my religion," according to the Bible, it's
>> God's religion that we accept.
>
> of personal responsibility that this statement entails.
>
The arrogance seems to be yours.
>
>> He additionally does say
>> what you said, since it is in several verses that he speaks
>> about that. As for us being sheep, though, you are right,
>> it is not particularly flattering if you know sheep, because
>> besides being cuddly and soft, they are also dumb about
>> some things. It's said they will follow anything, even a
>> wolf, and that some have been known to almost drown,
>> looking up at the rain. The reason we are called "sheep,"
>> is not because people are not intelligent, but because we
>> are very dependent upon a shepherd to lead us the right
>> way.
>
> at your heels, and you are driven here and there, all over the
> place, in whatever direction seems to be the most convenient
> at the time.
>
I have a shepherd. You have an imagination. There are no
dogs here. There are some old goats though. And maybe
a shark or two, and maybe some monkey-see-monkey-dos.
There are even a few stately wild stallions who are afraid
of a saddle being thrown on them.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
According to the Bible, he swears by himself,
since there is no greater than God.
>
> ?He additionally does say
>>what you said, since it is in several verses that he speaks
>>about that. As for us being sheep, though, you are right,
>>it is not particularly flattering if you know sheep, because
>>besides being cuddly and soft, they are also dumb about
>>some things. It's said they will follow anything, even a
>>wolf, and that some have been known to almost drown,
>>looking up at the rain. The reason we are called "sheep,"
>>is not because people are not intelligent, but because we
>>are very dependent upon a shepherd to lead us the right
>>way.
>
>
You might want to change your polarity.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
gifts to his children.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B30940B...@195.188.240.200...
>
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:11:15 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>
>>news:oXpGk.3987$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>> that Solomon built?
>>>>
>>>> Does the existence of 221B Baker Street mean that Sherlock Holmes is a
>>>> real person?
>>>
>>> Something Suzanne has not mentioned in a while is that God talks
>>> directly
>>> to her on a regular basis. Exactly what he says depends on the post you
>>> read (sometimes it's just "yes or "no") but if god said it it must be
>>> true. Or not.
>>Well, my goodness, I'll accomodate you on that one.
>>John 10:27:
>>"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
>>follow me"
>
> is too easily influenced or led. Someone with no brain of their own
> who just follows others.
>
> Sounds EXACTLY like you.
>
If I were what you claim, I'd be following you, and I
know better than to believe what you believe.
>
Suzanne
Ilas
news:cb_Gk.3054$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
> "Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B30940B...@195.188.240.200...
>> "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote in
>> news:JyxGk.4084$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>> Does 221 B Baker Street explain Sherlock Holmes?
>>> The Bible does explain Solomon's temple, in gigantic,
>>> clear detail. So much so that it can be identified by that
>>> intricate and elaborate amount of information.
>>
>> And I drove past Alnwick Castle the other day. You know what? In
>> gigantic clear detail, it was the spitting image of Hogwarts from the
>> Harry Potter films. I suppose that must mean Harry Potter is real.
>>
> Harry Potter is *so* not real. The Lord is, though.
I think you may have missed the point Suzanne. The Bible may describe
truthfully certain real people, real places, even real events (although it
also makes many many mistakes about all three). That cannot be used as
proof that its stories about gods, miracles and supernatural events are
therefore also true. Harry Potter books describe St Pancras station in
London, Harry Potter films show Alnwick Castle in Northumberland, but that
doesn't mean there is a school for wizards somewhere in England, and it
doesn;t mean that there is a bespectacled young wizard flying around
somewhere in England. Do you see that? It's fairly simple logic.
Your argument seems to be along the lines of "the Bible describes a place.
That place exists. The Bible also says everything was created in 6 days.
Therefore that must also be true". There's abolutely no substantive
difference between that argument and "the Harry Potter books describe a
place. That place exists. The Harry Potter book also decribe a young boy
who is a wizard. Therefore that must also be true". If you can't understand
that, that's a problem.
Ye Old One
Noah was/is a fictional character who had a much older flood story
attached to him. In those days few people lived to 50, let alone 100.
> Those people did have a
>chance. It was told in Genesis 3:15 that God promised
>to send a man born of only a woman,
All men are born of a woman.
> and that would
>be the Seed/Redeemer of mankind.
Who said we needed redeeming?
> He died even for
>those that perished in the flood,
There was no flood. What part of that FACT do you not understand?
> had they trusted in the
>promise of the Seed/Redeemer.
You are, as usual, deluded.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
The idea that there is a god is crazy.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
They get fattened up for the slaughter.
> It is not a relationship that ends in him killing
>them, it ends with him saving them.
Strange act for a shepherd.
> This shepherd laid
>his life down so that these sheep could be rescued.
Very strange act for a shepherd.
> He
>gave his life in payment for our sins
What sins?
> so that we could
>go to heaven through trusting in what he did for us.
Please provide evidence that heaven exists?
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Is he?
>He does not take care of the
>sheep only so that they can be killed. He takes care of them
>because he loves them.
Ah! He must be Welsh then. :)
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
And yet he is not all powerful, all knowing. He makes mistakes, he
abuses his position of power, he murders innocent children - some god
you got there.
>>
>> ?He additionally does say
>>>what you said, since it is in several verses that he speaks
>>>about that. As for us being sheep, though, you are right,
>>>it is not particularly flattering if you know sheep, because
>>>besides being cuddly and soft, they are also dumb about
>>>some things. It's said they will follow anything, even a
>>>wolf, and that some have been known to almost drown,
>>>looking up at the rain. The reason we are called "sheep,"
>>>is not because people are not intelligent, but because we
>>>are very dependent upon a shepherd to lead us the right
>>>way.
>>
>> Yep - you really are that deluded.
>>
>You might want to change your polarity.
I'm positive you are deluded in a very negative way.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Yes, it does sound EXACTLY like you.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Death, disease, starvation, poverty. I'm sure glad I'm not his child.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
It would be just as easy to turn Harry Potter into a god like figure
as it was for bronze age men to craft the fiction that is your god.
>>
>Suzanne
>>
--
Bob.
Caranx latus
> time is due. What is the difference between that and your God?
>
> Harry K
> From Suzanne:
> I just made a difference in what I replied. The picture of
> followers of Jesus being like sheep has to do with the
> relationship they have with the one and only Best
> Shepherd. It is not a relationship that ends in him killing
> them, it ends with him saving them. This shepherd laid
> his life down so that these sheep could be rescued. He
> gave his life in payment for our sins so that we could
> go to heaven through trusting in what he did for us.
> Suzanne
Since that is not what shepherds do, can I assume that you agree that
the shepherd metaphor is particularly applicable?
Caranx latus
So this shepherd doesn't behave like any other shepherd. Why then would
that metaphor have been chosen to describe Christ? You are implying that
the Gospel writers (or whoever else used that metaphor) chose their
words carelessly.
Caranx latus
[sigh... proofreading error]
Since that is not what shepherds do, can I assume that you agree that
the shepherd metaphor is *not* particularly applicable?
Mike Painter
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:50:50 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>
>>> This is, of course, a delusion. It is funny how two people with the
>>> same mental illness will find one being treated because it is a
>>> white rabbit that talks to them, while the other gets away with it
>>> because it is "god" that talks to them. Never managed to work that
>>> one out myself.
>>
>> If you can get enough people to support your belief in the White
>> Rabbit then by Shrink rules you are *not* crazy. "Significant social
>> support" for a belief invalidates that belief as a mark of insanity.
>
> Ah! I get it now :)
You have to ad economics to this. I once transported a woman to a mental
hospital. God told her to stay home and wait for a messsage. They left her
alone until she could not pay the rent.
As we hit the front porch she stopped, looked at us, apologised, looked up
and said "Strike them dead God".
Not bothered by the failure she offerd me about 100,000 acres of land that
she owned as we passed it on the way to the hospital. (I'd be rich today if
I was not dead.)
I've never been able to see the difference between her and people controlled
by rays from the university computer except the religious side of it.
The claims are essentially the same and the ability to "rationalize" failed
results are the same.
Woland
> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:kv7me4h6chiomviu5...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 21:47:11 -0500, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net>
> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >>news:vible4h732dtf0h8k...@4ax.com...
> >>> in talk.origins:
>
> >>>>"Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
It says nothing of the sort, as you've been shown.
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy
seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his
heel.
Cheezits
> "Caranx latus" <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:d1e08da3-d90b-4e65...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> The shepherd leads the sheep in the direction that is ultimately most
>> beneficial for the shepherd, not for the sheep.
>>
> This shepherd is not like that. He knows how to give good
> gifts to his children.
His children?! I thought they were his sheep. Which is it?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Harry K
> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:kv7me4h6chiomviu5...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 21:47:11 -0500, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net>
> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >>news:vible4h732dtf0h8k...@4ax.com...
> >>> in talk.origins:
>
> >>>>"Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Trying to paarse thast but...are you claiming that if they "had
trusted in..." they would not have drowned? What about those in other
places that had never had the opportunity to even _hear_ of your
god?...Oh, I know, they were slaughtered even though they were totally
innocent of any wrongdoing.
Harry K
Caranx latus
Gifts of mutton and wool, perhaps?
Harry K
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 03:07:18 -0500, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm afraid that is over her head. Maybe an explanation?
Harry K
Harry K
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 03:24:10 -0500, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
And that is if he allows them to live more than a few days before
slaughtering them, cf ye floode amongst others.
Harry K
Ye Old One
It is often said that a Welshman's Leisure Centre consists of a post
with a sheep tied to it.
Is that enough detail :)
--
Bob.
AC
>
> "Harry K" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0137171b-4e1a-495b...@a19g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> time is due. What is the difference between that and your God?
>
> Harry K
>>
> From Suzanne:
> I just made a difference in what I replied. The picture of
> followers of Jesus being like sheep has to do with the
> relationship they have with the one and only Best
> Shepherd. It is not a relationship that ends in him killing
> them, it ends with him saving them. This shepherd laid
> his life down so that these sheep could be rescued. He
> gave his life in payment for our sins so that we could
> go to heaven through trusting in what he did for us.
Which opens up a whole new door of theological absurdity. Why precisely did
anyone need to die for anyone's sins? God is supposed to be omnipotent, why
resort to bizarre blood rituals?
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
Mark VandeWettering
It's probably not really a very apt metaphor then, don't you think?
> This shepherd laid his life down so that these sheep could be rescued.
This is not typical shepherd behavior.
> He
> gave his life in payment for our sins so that we could
> go to heaven through trusting in what he did for us.
Who did he give it to, exactly? Why did they need payment?
Mark
> Suzanne
Mark VandeWettering
>>> news:slrngelf9r.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...>>>>> "Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:oXpGk.3987$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would the Bible be false if you find the very temple
>>>>>>>> that Solomon built?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the existence of 221B Baker Street mean that Sherlock Holmes is
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> real person?
>>>>>>
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>> Something Suzanne has not mentioned in a while is that God talks
>>>>>> directly
>>>>>> to her on a regular basis. Exactly what he says depends on the post
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> read (sometimes it's just "yes or "no") but if god said it it must be
>>>>>> true. Or not.
>>>>> Well, my goodness, I'll accomodate you on that one.
>>>>> John 10:27:
>>>>> "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
>>>>> follow me"
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I always thought it was an odd metaphor to use. I never aspired to
>>>> be a sheep. Why not say "My children hear my voice, and I know them,
>>>> and they follow me"? Why does your religion attempt to portray God's
>>>> children as mindless beasts? Isn't that a bit dehumanizing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Mark, it's not "my religion," according to the Bible, it's
>>> God's religion that we accept.
>>
>> of personal responsibility that this statement entails.
>>
> The arrogance seems to be yours.
No Suzanne, it isn't. It's yours. You are shirking the responsibility
for choosing your own path by saying that it's not _your_ personal
choice to follow your particular religion, that it's really God's
religion. This both allows you to deny personal responsibility even
while pretending that you speak for God.
>>> He additionally does say
>>> what you said, since it is in several verses that he speaks
>>> about that. As for us being sheep, though, you are right,
>>> it is not particularly flattering if you know sheep, because
>>> besides being cuddly and soft, they are also dumb about
>>> some things. It's said they will follow anything, even a
>>> wolf, and that some have been known to almost drown,
>>> looking up at the rain. The reason we are called "sheep,"
>>> is not because people are not intelligent, but because we
>>> are very dependent upon a shepherd to lead us the right
>>> way.
>>
>> The thing is, you don't have a shepard. There are dogs nipping
>> at your heels, and you are driven here and there, all over the
>> place, in whatever direction seems to be the most convenient
>> at the time.
>>
> I have a shepherd. You have an imagination. There are no
> dogs here. There are some old goats though. And maybe
> a shark or two, and maybe some monkey-see-monkey-dos.
> There are even a few stately wild stallions who are afraid
> of a saddle being thrown on them.
Baaaah.
I should know better than to argue with future vindaloo.
Mark
>>
> Suzanne
>
Tiny Bulcher
I dunno, but apparently he got it back. Maybe the cheque bounced.
Tiny Bulcher
> "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote in
> news:cb_Gk.3054$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>>
>> "Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B30940B...@195.188.240.200...
>>> "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote in
>>> news:JyxGk.4084$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>>>> Does 221 B Baker Street explain Sherlock Holmes?
>>>> The Bible does explain Solomon's temple, in gigantic,
>>>> clear detail. So much so that it can be identified by that
>>>> intricate and elaborate amount of information.
>>>
>>> And I drove past Alnwick Castle the other day. You know what? In
>>> gigantic clear detail, it was the spitting image of Hogwarts from
>>> the Harry Potter films. I suppose that must mean Harry Potter is
>>> real.
>>>
>> Harry Potter is *so* not real. The Lord is, though.
>
> I think you may have missed the point Suzanne. The Bible may describe
> truthfully certain real people, real places, even real events
> (although it also makes many many mistakes about all three). That
> cannot be used as proof that its stories about gods, miracles and
> supernatural events are therefore also true. Harry Potter books
> describe St Pancras station in London,
Kings Cross, in the books. But they filmed it in St Pancras, and JKR has
since said she was actually thinking of Euston. At that rate of
confusion 'Nazareth' probably meant 'Persepolis' (change for Tehran and
Isfahan Central).
Mike Painter
> "Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:oXpGk.3987$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Ye Old One wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>> Why would the Bible be false if you find the very temple
>>>> that Solomon built?
>>>
>>> Does the existence of 221B Baker Street mean that Sherlock Holmes
>>> is a real person?
>>
> (snip)
>> Something Suzanne has not mentioned in a while is that God talks
>> directly to her on a regular basis. Exactly what he says depends on
>> the post you read (sometimes it's just "yes or "no") but if god said
>> it it must be true. Or not.
> Well, my goodness, I'll accomodate you on that one.
> John 10:27:
> "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
> follow me"
And are taken to the slaughterhouse.
But I am talking about *your* specific claims that God converses with you as
in "The Lord has assured me that he can lead Linda in the way in which he
wants her to go "
You have spoken of this god conversing with you, something very few
christians claim.
Mike Painter
>>
>> And yet you claim your gods wiped out humanity except for eight
>> people. Both claims cannot be true.
>>
> Noah was a preacher of righteousness for at least 100
> years before the flood came. Those people did have a
> chance. It was told in Genesis 3:15 that God promised
> to send a man born of only a woman, and that would
> be the Seed/Redeemer of mankind. He died even for
> those that perished in the flood, had they trusted in the
> promise of the Seed/Redeemer.
>>
> Suzanne
That's a non answer.
What about the babies?
What does the future have to do with killing at the time?
What about the people who did not have access to this Noah?
3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed
and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Tell us how you get a virgin birth out of 3:15 while others get "The Two
Seed Theory"
Mike Painter
> On 2008-10-07, Suzanne <shi...@flash.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:oXpGk.3987$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why would the Bible be false if you find the very temple
>>>>> that Solomon built?
>>>>
>>>> Does the existence of 221B Baker Street mean that Sherlock Holmes
>>>> is a real person?
>>>
>> (snip)
>>> Something Suzanne has not mentioned in a while is that God talks
>>> directly to her on a regular basis. Exactly what he says depends on
>>> the post you read (sometimes it's just "yes or "no") but if god
>>> said it it must be true. Or not.
>> Well, my goodness, I'll accomodate you on that one.
>> John 10:27:
>> "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
>> follow me"
>>>
>
> and they follow me"? Why does your religion attempt to portray God's
> children as mindless beasts? Isn't that a bit dehumanizing?
>
eaten while their master's lived in relative comfort. They also knew that a
sheep hearder was eithr a kid or someone who couldn't do much else.
Mike Painter
> "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >>
> Don't worry. He's done well. And he also knows how
> to separate the sheep from the old goats.
>>
Done well?
2000 years and only Suzanne and a few like her have the "real " truth, and
no two of them agree about it.
Mike Painter
>>
>> The shepherd leads the sheep in the direction that is ultimately most
>> beneficial for the shepherd, not for the sheep.
>>
> This shepherd is not like that. He knows how to give good
> gifts to his children.
>>
Cancer, Malaria, starvation, AIDS...
Religion.
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
>
>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:j4one494i7lksnoq3...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 21:47:11 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote
>> in talk.origins:
>>
>>>
>>>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>>news:vible4h732dtf0h8k...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:11:15 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote
>>>> in talk.origins:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:oXpGk.3987$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would the Bible be false if you find the very temple
>>>>>>>> that Solomon built?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the existence of 221B Baker Street mean that Sherlock Holmes is
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> real person?
>>>>>>
>>>>>(snip)
>>>>>> Something Suzanne has not mentioned in a while is that God talks
>>>>>> directly
>>>>>> to her on a regular basis. Exactly what he says depends on the post
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> read (sometimes it's just "yes or "no") but if god said it it must be
>>>>>> true. Or not.
>>>>>Well, my goodness, I'll accomodate you on that one.
>>>>>John 10:27:
>>>>>"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
>>>>>follow me"
>>>>>>
>>>>>Suzanne
>>>>
>>>> So, in your theology, God doesn't want to save everyone.
>>>>
>>>No, what you are saying is not right becasue God does want
>>>everyone to be saved, according to the Bible...
>>>2 Peter 3:9:
>>>"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men
>>>count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing
>>>that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
>>>Anyone can come to him and put their trust in him.
>>>>
>>>Suzanne
>>
>> You are trying to have it both ways then. You make excuses for God not
>> contacting people, but you say He wants everyone to follow Him. Sorry,
>> but you are being inconsistent. If He is capable of contacting people,
>> as you claim, but does not do so, your doctrine is in error. If He does
>> not do so because He cannot, your doctrine is in error.
>>
>I have not said that he doesn't contact everyone. The idea
>that I "make excuses for God" is crazy.
Are you claiming that He has contacted everyone? If that is the case,
you are wrong.
Earle Jones
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 02:44:39 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
> >news:kv7me4h6chiomviu5...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 21:47:11 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
> >> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >> And yet you claim your gods wiped out humanity except for eight
> >> people. Both claims cannot be true.
> >>
> >Noah was a preacher of righteousness for at least 100
> >years before the flood came.
>
> Noah was/is a fictional character who had a much older flood story
> attached to him. In those days few people lived to 50, let alone 100.
>
> > Those people did have a
> >chance. It was told in Genesis 3:15 that God promised
> >to send a man born of only a woman,
>
> All men are born of a woman....
*
I believe that Jesus was female. Born exclusively of a woman, he could
not have had a Y-chromosome. His behavior as reported was certainly
feminine -- nurturing and caring and taking care of his people, rather
than kicking ass and making war.
He was more of a gatherer than a hunter.
Feminine in all respects.
He lived to age 33 without any sex (as far as we know -- is that right?)
Definitely female.
earle
*
Suzanne
We are also your relatives. Have you ever studied
what it is that makes us age? Turns out to have a
lot to do with the pituitary gland. At a certain time,
in someone's age, it starts to limit the production
of seratonin, which in turn would help us to
utilze growth hormone (HGH) that we naturally
produce. It turns out we still produce enough
HGH to be younger physically, but we can't get
at it because of the decreased seratonin. Many
scientists are looking at aging now more like it
is a disease than just a naturally occurring event.
I don't think anyone should try taking these kinds
of things on their own without seeking the help
of a doctor and his advice.
>
>> Those people did have a
>>chance. It was told in Genesis 3:15 that God promised
>>to send a man born of only a woman,
>
> All men are born of a woman.
>
just of a woman. This one was only born of a
woman.
>
>> and that would
>>be the Seed/Redeemer of mankind.
>
>
For one, Jesus Christ.
>
>> He died even for
>>those that perished in the flood,
>
>
Yes there was a flood. There also are many old
ruins under the ocean. One of the ancient ones
is a find off the coast of Japan, by the island
of Yonaguni Jima. The underwater structures
seem to be a pyramid. It is believed they could
be as old as 8,000 to 10,000 years old. Some
have argued they are natural formations. There
are ruins off the coast of Miami, and Cuba.
There are ancient ruins off the coast of England,
and a submerged forest. There is also a submerged
forest off the coast of Washington State in America.
There are terraces that go into the sea and look like
they might have at one time connected with Mexico
that are at the SW tip of Florida. I'm sure that sooner
or later some flood information will turn up.
>
>> had they trusted in the
>>promise of the Seed/Redeemer.
>
>
Christ confirmed the flood of Noah, and I trust him.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-E765...@netnews.comcast.net...
I've read and the off-spring is always a female. But
Jesus was not a female, and the Bible says that he is
the child of the Holy Spirit and of Mary.
>
> He was more of a gatherer than a hunter.
>
> Feminine in all respects.
>
that he was anything other than a very strong man.
You may see people making paintings where he looks
feminine, but you can find those that equally portray
him as being a strong man. He walked everywhere,
like for miles, climbed mountains, fished, did
carpentry work probably like building houses.
>
> He lived to age 33 without any sex (as far as we know -- is that right?)
>
>
> Definitely female.
>
The story about him chasing the money changers
out of the temple and overturning tables, and chasing
them with a whip does not sound like a feminine
person to me. Not that women can't do all those
things, they can, but the picture that images of him
that are written sound like that of a strong masculine
man.
>
Suzanne
Ilas
news:5bCdnWWnBcsQZ3HV...@bt.com:
> žus cwęš Ilas:
>> "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote in
>> news:cb_Gk.3054$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
>> I think you may have missed the point Suzanne. The Bible may describe
>> truthfully certain real people, real places, even real events
>> (although it also makes many many mistakes about all three). That
>> cannot be used as proof that its stories about gods, miracles and
>> supernatural events are therefore also true. Harry Potter books
>> describe St Pancras station in London,
>
> Kings Cross, in the books. But they filmed it in St Pancras, and JKR has
> since said she was actually thinking of Euston. At that rate of
> confusion 'Nazareth' probably meant 'Persepolis' (change for Tehran and
> Isfahan Central).
Ah well. I've never read the books, but I've had to sit through the films
several times with an 8 year old and a 6 year old, although we tend to
watch them in random 3 minute chunks. You're lucky I didn't confuse them
with High School Musical, Hannah Montana and SpongeBob. In my head, all of
them merge in to one when I try to explain them - "so let me get this
straight. Troy is a big square yellow kid who goes to Hogwarts, which is
under the sea, and that bloke who sang Achy Breaky Heart is a wizard whose
daughter lives in St Pancras and wants to dance?"
Actually, Kings Cross makes more sense, with JK Rowling being from
Edinburgh
Tiny Bulcher
Yet another example of how urban legends proliferate! She's actually
from Gloucestershire, but was living in Edinburgh when she wrote the
first book. (And according to her account she was on a train from
Manchester to London when she first had the idea).
(I'm not a HP fan, btw).
And this is what, ten years or so after the event, and with her own
account available. I dread to think what got changed between Jesus' life
and the penning of the first Gospel.
Suzanne
"Woland" <jerr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddd88c99-4fdd-4dac...@64g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
From Suzanne:
What I have "been shown?" No, you can read about this
in the Bible if you trace the messianic scriptures. This is
the first mention of the Redeemer. This is the same that is
the Seed of Abraham.
Galatians 3:16:
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He
saith not And to seeds as of many; but as of one, And to thy
seed, which is Christ."
You can trace "The Seed" through these verses:
Isaac: Gen. 21:1-7, 11-12; 26:24-25
Jacob: Gen. 28:10-17
Jesus: Gen. 3:15; Matthew 1:1-2, 17; Galatians 3:15-16, 29
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
From Suzanne:
Harry, the Bible says that God is just. Somehow he has provided
for that kind of thing. It says that when Jesus died physically on
the cross, he went in his spirit to the heart of the earth and he
preached to those souls who were in prison "who were once
rebellious since the flood." The Bible says that Jesus led
captivity captive.
Here is an Old Testament prophecy:
Psalm 68:18:
"Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive:
thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also,
that the LORD God might dwell among them."
--
Here is the New Testament fulfillment of it:
Ephesians 4:8:
"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led
captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men."
>
Also, yes, I am saying that the ones who could have been
saved would have been provided for and probably have
been in the Ark, and welcomed gladly.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> Suzanne wrote:
> >>
>>> And yet you claim your gods wiped out humanity except for eight
>>> people. Both claims cannot be true.
>>>
>> Noah was a preacher of righteousness for at least 100
>> years before the flood came. Those people did have a
>> chance. It was told in Genesis 3:15 that God promised
>> to send a man born of only a woman, and that would
>> be the Seed/Redeemer of mankind. He died even for
>> those that perished in the flood, had they trusted in the
>> promise of the Seed/Redeemer.
>>>
>> Suzanne
>
> That's a non answer.
>
>
> What about the babies?
>
It doesn't say. They probably are in heaven.
>
> What does the future have to do with killing at the time?
>
>
> What about the people who did not have access to this Noah?
>
access to Noah. the world may have been vastly more
modern than you think then.
>
> 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy
> seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his
> heel.
> Tell us how you get a virgin birth out of 3:15 while others get "The Two
> Seed Theory"
>
this occasion it says her seed. But then you can also read it
later in the scriptures. Isaiah 7:14 is one such place.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
not even born yet. I have not gone everywhere with God
because I am not omnipresent as he is. I am sure that he
will give everyone an equal chance, if this is what you
are asking.
>
Suzanne