Confronting Christians
Jim Nichols
I dont believe in hasselling people about their lost/saved
situation. I guess you know where you are at if you have passed 21 years
old. When we were teenagers in So Cal we would get together and toss
around all the arguements for this and that. My we did cover everything
and drank alot of coffee too. Coffee is thinkers juice and beer is for
relaxing.
I pretty much dumped all the great thinking though when I stopped and
considered what took place in Jerusalem apx 2000 years ago. Crucifixion
was not a pretty way to be executed. I wont go into the details here. As
teenagers we tossed all the other ideas around so we owed an audience to
this one too. Jesus of Nazereth put himself in position to be executed
which wouldnt get much press except that he did it for me and you. The
jail time for our criminal acts before God (sometimes called sins) he paid
when he allowed his blood to be shed.
The blood sacrifice was payment for us all. "on him was laid the iniquity
of us all". One of the prophets said that
The Jews demand evidence of God (What have you done for me lately?). The
Greeks (todays athiests) demand logical proof of God. But God chose the
foolishness of
preaching to save those that believe. You can serve your own jail time if
you want too. Nobody is twisting your arm but it amounts to an eternity
in hell. You do what you want to but as for me and mine we'll accept the
free pardon.
Jim Nichols
--
Jim Nichols
Jim Griffin
Jim Nichols <ka...@olympus.net> demonstrated his deep thinking abilities by
writing:
[snip the drivel]
>I pretty much dumped all the great thinking .....
[snip some more usless stuff]
That is very evident. Try some critical thinking to get yourself back into
the
human race.
Jim Griffin
Wayne Delia
>I dont believe in hasselling people about their lost/saved
>situation. I guess you know where you are at if you have passed 21 years
>old. When we were teenagers in So Cal we would get together and toss
>around all the arguements for this and that. My we did cover everything
>and drank alot of coffee too. Coffee is thinkers juice and beer is for
>relaxing.
Nichols, are you incapable of original thought? This entire post is parrotted word
for word with some equally mindless drivel you posted a month or two ago. Did
you type it up into a text file on your computer, which you occasionally post
without bothering to respond to criticism to it? You're looking more and more like
the stereotypical Christian idiot that you're trying to avoid.
>I pretty much dumped all the great thinking
As others have pointed out, that's plainly obvious.
>though when I stopped and
>considered what took place in Jerusalem apx 2000 years ago. Crucifixion
>was not a pretty way to be executed.
There are worse ways to die. Wouldn't it make more sense to you to worship
someone who died in a more terrible manner, who happened to be insane and
claimed that he, too, died for everyone's sins?
(Religious drivel snipped)
>But God chose the foolishness of
>preaching to save those that believe.
I'm positive I responded to this particular line of bullshit earlier. If, as you admit,
it is foolishness, and it's only been effective on less than a quarter of the world's
population over the past nearly 2000 years, what the hell good is it?
>You can serve your own jail time if
>you want too.
I also responded to this insipid comment as well. No one has a choice whether to
go to jail or not. Judges in most judicial systems do not offer the option of serving
the sentence to the convicted felon. No judge says "Having been found guilty of
X felony, you are sentenced to 7 to 25 years in the federal penitentiary, if you
want to. If not, well, then, you can just go free."
The more you post this ridiculous shit, the more of an idiot you look like, and the
more insulting you are to the few Christians who are able to think rationally.
Wayne Delia, red...@ibm.net
"I am evil Ho-mer! I am evil Ho-mer!" - Evil Homer Simpson,
dancing on the grave of Good Homer Simpson
Shane D. Killian
Also Sprach Jim Nichols (ka...@olympus.net):
> I pretty much dumped all the great thinking though when I stopped and
> considered what took place in Jerusalem apx 2000 years ago.
Never stop thinking. That's a large problem with our society.
> But God chose the foolishness of preaching to save those that believe.
Foolish, indeed. What's the point of preaching to save those who already
believe?
--
sha...@vnet.net | http://www.vnet.net/users/shanek
-----
"Start making sense, NOW!" --Michael Garibaldi, "Grey 17 Is Missing"
Aaron Bilger
On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 20:29:02 -0800, ka...@olympus.net (Jim Nichols) wrote:
>I pretty much dumped all the great thinking though when I stopped and
>considered what took place in Jerusalem apx 2000 years ago.
Sorry to hear that.
>Crucifixion
>was not a pretty way to be executed. I wont go into the details here. As
>teenagers we tossed all the other ideas around so we owed an audience to
>this one too.
Indeed, you can give it an audience -- and realize it (resurrection, anyway;
crucifixation and even martyrdom for bad ideas may be plausible. rising from the
dead it not) has as about much factual support as other legends such as Dracula
and Paul Bunyan.
>Jesus of Nazereth put himself in position to be executed
>which wouldnt get much press except that he did it for me and you. The
>jail time for our criminal acts before God (sometimes called sins) he paid
>when he allowed his blood to be shed.
I never asked anyone to die for me, and would consider anyone who demanded
someone else's death for their sake to be a depraved bastard. Odd how
Christians ascribe such perversion to a 'perfect' deity who torments his own
failure of a creation and demands his own son die because of his father's big
mistakes.
Aaron
Stan Collins
I won't go so far as to call him non-human, or to say his theology is
wrong (how could I possibly know that for certain?) but I will call his
theology something worse than wrong, I call it irrelevant.
You see, wrong ideas are instructive. They teach us about the fallacies
that lead to wrong ideas. However, accepting a non-logical (notice I
didn't use the term illogical, regardless of whether the term applies)
proposition and then continually debating its "merits" is tantamount to
a waste opf humanity's time. We'd all be better served if these type of
posts never appeared. We'd also be better served though if the
name-calling (e.g. subhuman) were to cease.
Stan Collins
HazChem
In article <karl-06029...@papm058.olympus.net>, ka...@olympus.net
(Jim Nichols) wrote:
>preaching to save those that believe. You can serve your own jail time if
>you want too. Nobody is twisting your arm but it amounts to an eternity
>in hell. You do what you want to but as for me and mine we'll accept the
>free pardon.
What you, and indeed just about all of the fundies who post here, don't
seem to understand is that atheists don't believe in hell (well, at least
most of us don't.)
Therefore, the threat of going there upon our deaths is unlikely to frighten us.
If I were to tell you that if you don't believe in Her, the Invisible Pink
Unicorn would digest you for all of eternity, would you be frightened?
--
HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL http://gridley.acns.carleton.edu/~harrisws/wintermute
"Between the desire/And the spasm |"Cynic, n. A blackguard whose
Between the potency/And the existence | faulty vision sees things as
Between the essence/And the descent | they are, not as they ought
Falls the Shadow" | to be."
(T.S. Eliot) | (Ambrose Bierce)
Bruce Salem
In article <32FBB3...@trinity.edu>,
Stan Collins <SCol...@trinity.edu> wrote:
>You see, wrong ideas are instructive. They teach us about the fallacies
>that lead to wrong ideas. However, accepting a non-logical (notice I
>didn't use the term illogical, regardless of whether the term applies)
>proposition and then continually debating its "merits" is tantamount to
>a waste opf humanity's time. We'd all be better served if these type of
>posts never appeared. We'd also be better served though if the
>name-calling (e.g. subhuman) were to cease.
Here, Here. There was a thread about how debating with Creationists
is futile. It got out of hand long before I saw it, but the idea offeneded
me. Debating with Creationists may be pointless if you want to change their
mind, but talking to them has other uses. For me it has sharpened my thinking
and wrting, but what it has really done is to exactly the opposite goal
of the people pushing Creationism. It has underscored the weaknesses of
all organized religion, and Christianity in particular. I can hardly take
Christianity seriously anymore as a result of the absurdities pushed by
Christians on the USNET and in person. So fools do teach, and hopfully
I do better in my life as a result.
Bruce Salem
--
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!
Jim Nichols
In article <AF209C7...@134.68.5.34>, "Jim Griffin"
<jgri...@indyvax.iupui.edu> wrote:
>Jim Nichols <ka...@olympus.net> demonstrated his deep thinking abilities by
>writing:
>
>[snip the drivel]
>
>>I pretty much dumped all the great thinking .....
>
>[snip some more usless stuff]
>
>
>That is very evident. Try some critical thinking to get yourself back into
>the
>human race.
>
>Jim Griffin
Jim
It is not necessary to be a great thinker to accept Jesus Christ as
saviour. The free pardon is available to all. Dont you understand that
most people are not as bright as you are. If salvation were only
available to the bright, only 5% could be saved.
"The Jews require a sign and the Greeks seek after wisdom but we preach
Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock and unto the Greeks
foolishness but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ
the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1)
If you are trying to prove it logically - you will never succeed. If you
are looking for a sign from heaven - you will never get it."
--
Best of Luck
Jim Nichols
Jim Nichols
Wayne
Original thought is not really necessary. Only the very bright can do it
and I am not one of those. I guess really 95% of mankind doesnt or cant
do any original thinking. That includes all my friends, neighbors, quite
a crowd.
The post was not parrotted but copied from a stock I keep. Case a fool
drops by. Have something for them, dont you see.
Are you from another planet? Dont tell me you have not heard MINDLESS
DRIVEL before. Really, you talk like some kind of foreigner anyway. We
will all know when you get it together. You will start talking like
Americans and forget that drivel stuff.
CRITICISM is presumptous. It presumes I have some private thought that is
worthwhile and I dont. It also presumes I am as smart as the Author of
the Bible, and I'm not.
Stereotypical Christian is beyond me. I haven't the slightest idea what
that would be. Sounds like mindless drivel (sorry).
Calling me idiot is not what you really mean. It is too bad I have to
interpret your post. We have night school over here. You can sign up.
Might help.
What you mean is you have applied your magnamous brain to a host of things
and assuredly are the man of the hour and we should all open the door for
you when you pass by. You have tried everything, seen everything and read
everything. And possessing all this lofty vanity you feel that your
neighbors and myself have got to be sick or they would surely be as grand
a fellow as yourself.
Dont use the term Christian Idiot in a ball park mister or you will surely
find out how little you are.
>
>Nichols, are you incapable of original thought? This entire post is
parrotted word
>for word with some equally mindless drivel you posted a month or two ago. Did
>you type it up into a text file on your computer, which you occasionally post
>without bothering to respond to criticism to it? You're looking more and
more like
>the stereotypical Christian idiot that you're trying to avoid.
>Wayne Delia, red...@ibm.net
>"I am evil Ho-mer! I am evil Ho-mer!" - Evil Homer Simpson,
>dancing on the grave of Good Homer Simpson
Eric Gunnerson
Jim Nichols <ka...@polympus.net> wrote in article
<karl-10029...@papm036.olympus.net>...
into
> >the
> >human race.
> It is not necessary to be a great thinker to accept Jesus Christ as
> saviour.
In fact, it help if you're not much of a thinker at all.
> The free pardon is available to all. Dont you understand that
> most people are not as bright as you are. If salvation were only
> If you are trying to prove it logically - you will never succeed. If you
> are looking for a sign from heaven - you will never get it."
Then what's the point of you telling us?
Damian Hammontree
in <karl-10029...@papm035.olympus.net>, Jim Nichols (ka...@polympus.net) writes:
>Wayne
>Original thought is not really necessary. Only the very bright can do it
>and I am not one of those. I guess really 95% of mankind doesnt or cant
>do any original thinking. That includes all my friends, neighbors, quite
>a crowd.
>The post was not parrotted but copied from a stock I keep. Case a fool
>drops by. Have something for them, dont you see.
>Are you from another planet? Dont tell me you have not heard MINDLESS
>DRIVEL before. Really, you talk like some kind of foreigner anyway. We
>will all know when you get it together. You will start talking like
>Americans and forget that drivel stuff.
Good lord, Jim, could you please stop babbling and construct a coherent
sentence or two? You're giving Wayne a hard time for "talking like a
foreigner" because he uses english grammar? Well, England _is_ a foreign
country I suppose..
>CRITICISM is presumptous. It presumes I have some private thought that is
>worthwhile and I dont. It also presumes I am as smart as the Author of
>the Bible, and I'm not.
Hardly. If you're being asked to render an opinion on something like this,
then saying you won't just sounds like you're shirking your responsibilities
as a sentient being with a brain. Use it. It is beyond me why you think
that thinking is, by definition, vain.
D
--
Damian Hammontree dam...@groucho.med.jhu.edu
"A spokesman for the Lyon Group, producers of _Barney and Friends_, denied
that Barney is an instrument of Satan." --the Advocate, spring 1994
...forever in debt to your priceless advice...
erikc
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:54:24 -0800
ka...@polympus.net (Jim Nichols)
as message <karl-10029...@papm036.olympus.net>
-- posted from: alt.atheism:
>|
>|>Jim Nichols <ka...@olympus.net> demonstrated his deep thinking abilities by
>|>writing:
>|>
>|>[snip the drivel]
>|>
>|>>I pretty much dumped all the great thinking .....
>|>
>|>[snip some more usless stuff]
>|>
>|>
>|>the
>|>human race.
>|>
>|Jim
>|It is not necessary to be a great thinker to accept Jesus Christ as
Yeah, you don't have to think at all.
>|saviour. The free pardon is available to all. Dont you understand that
>|most people are not as bright as you are. If salvation were only
We already know it. We were also beginning to wonder when you were going to
figure that out.
>|available to the bright, only 5% could be saved.
Try assuming responsibility for your fucking life and stop relying on that
big-daddy-in-the-sky who doesn't exist anyway.
>|"The Jews require a sign and the Greeks seek after wisdom but we preach
the bullshit which is
>|Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock and unto the Greeks
>|foolishness but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ
the dead hippie
>|the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1)
>|If you are trying to prove it logically - you will never succeed. If you
>|are looking for a sign from heaven - you will never get it."
Because it's all bullshit anyway.
>|--
>|Best of Luck
>|Jim Nichols
Erikc.
Creationist: a bible college graduate whose commencement
exercises consist of demonstrating that he can walk without
scraping his knuckles on the floor.
/* Here's an example of thier moral degeneracy */
http://www.christiangallery.com/ (home page)
http://www.christiangallery.com/sick1.html#bugger
erikc
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:27:45 -0800
ka...@polympus.net (Jim Nichols)
as message <karl-10029...@papm035.olympus.net>
-- posted from: alt.atheism:
>|Wayne
>|Original thought is not really necessary. Only the very bright can do it
>|and I am not one of those. I guess really 95% of mankind doesnt or cant
>|do any original thinking. That includes all my friends, neighbors, quite
>|a crowd.
>|The post was not parrotted but copied from a stock I keep. Case a fool
>|drops by. Have something for them, dont you see.
>|Are you from another planet? Dont tell me you have not heard MINDLESS
>|DRIVEL before. Really, you talk like some kind of foreigner anyway. We
>|will all know when you get it together. You will start talking like
>|Americans and forget that drivel stuff.
>|worthwhile and I dont. It also presumes I am as smart as the Author of
>|the Bible, and I'm not.
>|that would be. Sounds like mindless drivel (sorry).
>|Calling me idiot is not what you really mean. It is too bad I have to
>|interpret your post. We have night school over here. You can sign up.
>|Might help.
>|What you mean is you have applied your magnamous brain to a host of things
>|and assuredly are the man of the hour and we should all open the door for
>|you when you pass by. You have tried everything, seen everything and read
>|everything. And possessing all this lofty vanity you feel that your
>|neighbors and myself have got to be sick or they would surely be as grand
>|a fellow as yourself.
>|Dont use the term Christian Idiot in a ball park mister or you will surely
>|find out how little you are.
>|>
>|>Nichols, are you incapable of original thought? This entire post is
>|parrotted word
>|>for word with some equally mindless drivel you posted a month or two ago. Did
>|>you type it up into a text file on your computer, which you occasionally post
>|>without bothering to respond to criticism to it? You're looking more and
>|more like
>|>the stereotypical Christian idiot that you're trying to avoid.
>|
>|>Wayne Delia, red...@ibm.net
>|>"I am evil Ho-mer! I am evil Ho-mer!" - Evil Homer Simpson,
>|>dancing on the grave of Good Homer Simpson
>|Best of Luck
>|Jim Nichols
Writing typical of a christian idiot.
Russell Dovey
"God bless those Pagans."-Homer Simpson
--
"Only stormtroopers would be this precise"
-Obi-Wan Kenobi, Star Wars
IG (Slim) Simpson
dam...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu (Damian Hammontree) wrote:
>in <karl-10029...@papm035.olympus.net>, Jim Nichols (ka...@polympus.net) writes:
[snip]
>>Are you from another planet? Dont tell me you have not heard MINDLESS
>>DRIVEL before. Really, you talk like some kind of foreigner anyway. We
>>will all know when you get it together. You will start talking like
>>Americans and forget that drivel stuff.
>Good lord, Jim, could you please stop babbling and construct a coherent
>sentence or two? You're giving Wayne a hard time for "talking like a
>foreigner" because he uses english grammar? Well, England _is_ a foreign
>country I suppose..
Right, Danian ! Canada is a foreign country too (to Americans) but I
kin talk amerckin tu. (Sorry. got into funamentalist mode :-) )
>>CRITICISM is presumptous. It presumes I have some private thought that is
>>worthwhile and I dont. It also presumes I am as smart as the Author of
>>the Bible, and I'm not.
>Hardly. If you're being asked to render an opinion on something like this,
>then saying you won't just sounds like you're shirking your responsibilities
>as a sentient being with a brain. Use it. It is beyond me why you think
>that thinking is, by definition, vain.
It's in-vain to some !
Slim
False return address. Real one is ssim...@cnwl.igs.net
How ceaselessly Grendel harassed......Beowulf
Marna T. Renteria
> What you, and indeed just about all of the fundies who post here, don't
> seem to understand is that atheists don't believe in hell (well, at least
> most of us don't.)
>
> Therefore, the threat of going there upon our deaths is unlikely to frighten us.
>
Just because you don't believe in hell doesn't make it true.
Just because we believe in God and hell doesn't make them true.
We all shall see what's true.
Wayne Delia
In <33013706....@news.insync.net>, firew...@insync.net (erikc) writes:
>On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:27:45 -0800
>ka...@polympus.net (Jim Nichols)
>as message <karl-10029...@papm035.olympus.net>
>-- posted from: alt.atheism:
(More piggybacking as I thankfully missed the original post.)
>>|Wayne
>>|Stereotypical Christian is beyond me.
No, actually, you're reinforcing the concept of a stereotypical Christian. You
oppose and resist original thought, and you seem to think that's a good thing.
>>|I haven't the slightest idea what
>>|that would be. Sounds like mindless drivel (sorry).
Your ministers are no doubt proud of your acceptance of your own ignorance.
>>|Calling me idiot is not what you really mean.
Take my word for it. I sincerely mean you're an idiot.
>>|It is too bad I have to interpret your post.
What's the difficulty you're having with interpreting "You're an idiot"?
>>|We have night school over here. You can sign up.
>>|Might help.
I'd be happy to. What courses do you need taught? How's the pay?
>>|What you mean is you have applied your magnamous brain to a host of things
>>|and assuredly are the man of the hour and we should all open the door for
>>|you when you pass by.
Yes, I have applied my magnanimous (note the correct spelling) brain to a host of
things. No, I am not assuredly the man of the hour, and I am perfectly capable of
holding the door open for myself. But I must say, it is a relief that you've
abandoned your religious parrotting for the time being.
>>|You have tried everything, seen everything and read everything.
That's far from the truth. Is it a Christian principle to lie?
>>|And possessing all this lofty vanity you feel that your
>>|neighbors and myself have got to be sick or they would surely be as grand
>>|a fellow as yourself.
I've never felt this way, nor have I ever said or written anything remotely similar.
Is it a Christian principle to lie?
Nichols. Listen up. I am calling you a liar. You are lying, and to be called a liar in
our society is not necessarily a glowing compliment. Please, try to defend yourself
retract your statement.
>>|Dont use the term Christian Idiot in a ball park mister or you will surely
>>|find out how little you are.
I'll call you a Christian idiot in any ballpark, major or minor league. I'll even buy
you a beer, a pretzel, and a pennant before demonstrating exactly why you're
a Christian idiot.
Wayne Delia
In <5dr0pl$b...@news.jhu.edu>, dam...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu (Damian Hammontree) writes:
>in <karl-10029...@papm035.olympus.net>, Jim Nichols (ka...@polympus.net) writes:
(I missed the original response, so here goes...)
>>Wayne
>>Original thought is not really necessary.
That's exactly what your ministers and priests want you to believe. They'll do
all your thinking for you.
>>Only the very bright can do it and I am not one of those.
Then stop trying and leave us alone.
>>I guess really 95% of mankind doesnt or cant
>>do any original thinking. That includes all my friends, neighbors, quite
>>a crowd.
Speak for yourself. Just because you admit that you and those in your society
circle are idiots, don't assume that 95% of mankind is similarly ignorant.
>>The post was not parrotted but copied from a stock I keep.
In other words, "parrotted."
>>Case a fool drops by. Have something for them, dont you see.
It requires a fool to accept the drivel you're parrotting.
>>Are you from another planet?
Well, I am convinced (and fervently hope) that you and I are from different
planets. That's the only explanation I can come up with for the MINDLESS
DRIVEL you're constantly posting.
>>Dont tell me you have not heard MINDLESS DRIVEL before.
I've read a lot of your postings and they're fairly consistent. Mindless drivel.
>>Really, you talk like some kind of foreigner anyway.
Je parle francais comme un vache espagnol.
>>We will all know when you get it together.
When I can check my brain at the church door like you've done? Can I be your
best friend? You're my role model. Accept Jesus, uhuhuhuh. There. Do I have it
together yet?
>>You will start talking like Americans and forget that drivel stuff.
Just about all of your drivel has already been forgotten.
>>CRITICISM is presumptous. It presumes I have some private thought that is
>>worthwhile and I dont.
Nichols. Listen up. This is a viscious newsgroup. You've just admitted that you're
an idiot. You've just said, in your own words, that you have no worthwhile
private thoughts. If there was anybody who actually seriously considered what
you have to say, all they have to do to refute any of your claims is to quote
your own words back at you. If you want to wear your ignorance as a badge of
honor, you go right ahead, but you're doing a disservice to the minority of
Christians who are capable of rational thought. And don't get offended when
people like me call you the Village Idiot when you're wearing a sign around your
neck saying "I'm the Village Idiot."
>>It also presumes I am as smart as the Author of
>>the Bible, and I'm not.
I consider you an idiot, but that still gives you more credit than this assumed
Author of the Bible.
Rob Merritt
ka...@polympus.net (Jim Nichols) wrote:
>It is not necessary to be a great thinker to accept Jesus Christ as
>The free pardon is available to all.
Its not free. You have to accept the unacceptable.
>Dont you understand that most people are not as bright as you are.
Which explains why Christianty is so popular.
>If salvation were only available to the bright, only 5% could be saved.
We are. We're saved from the bonds of our fear of death......and life.
<snip>
Rob Merritt
"No God, Know Peace." - me.
IG (Slim) Simpson
red...@ibm.net (Wayne Delia) wrote:
>In <33013706....@news.insync.net>, firew...@insync.net (erikc) writes:
>>On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:27:45 -0800
>>ka...@polympus.net (Jim Nichols)
>>as message <karl-10029...@papm035.olympus.net>
>>-- posted from: alt.atheism:
>(More piggybacking as I thankfully missed the original post.)
[snip]
>>>|Dont use the term Christian Idiot in a ball park mister or you will surely
>>>|find out how little you are.
Waye, I'm sure he means that to do so in a ball park would result in
all those peace-loving christans beating the shit out of you.
>I'll call you a Christian idiot in any ballpark, major or minor league. I'll even buy
>you a beer, a pretzel, and a pennant before demonstrating exactly why you're
>a Christian idiot.
Slim
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Jim Nichols (ka...@polympus.net) wrote:
: Original thought is not really necessary.
Granted, many live (what they perceive to be) full lives without it...
: Only the very bright can do it and I am not one of those.
*There's* the fucking understatement of the decade! ROTFLMAO!
: I guess really 95% of mankind doesnt or cant do any original thinking.
I get that feeling too, sometimes.
: That includes all my friends, neighbors, quite a crowd.
Funny...all (well, *most*) of mine quite frequently display original
thoughts.
: Dont tell me you have not heard MINDLESS DRIVEL before.
If creationists, smurf-suckers, and fundinazis would just stop
cross-posting/spamming to alt.atheism, maybe I could find out what that
would be like...(dreamy, wistful look)
: Stereotypical Christian is beyond me.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
: Sounds like mindless drivel (sorry).
Don't be sorry -- you're exactly right on this point!
: Calling me idiot is not what you really mean.
*Sure* it is!
--
******************************
Me fail English?
That's unpossible!
- Ralph Wiggum
******************************
Rynne McCoy
If you ask Me, it would be damned easy to die for everyone's sins and
get to come back in a fabulous death-proof bod.
Much harder to live in torment for everyone's sins with only the prospect
of the Lake of Fire and the Second Death to look forward to.
-- A Word For You From Baalim's (sic) Ass
--
BABALON 156 *** SHEDONA 435 | she...@intrepid.net
"I used to be such a sweet, sweet thing
Till they got ahold of me ..." --Alice Cooper
Peter Kirby
It's really quite simple. Your consciousness is a product of the
workings of your brain (go learn some neuroscience - I recommend the
book _Consciousness Explained_ by Dennet). When your brain stops
functioning, bye bye consciousness. While there may be some teeny tiny
chance that your consciousness actually does survive death, I wouldn't
give a half second worrying about it. That would be like staying up
nights worrying that the boogeyman will get you in your sleep.
Also, did you ever wonder why these gods can't give punishments and
rewards until the afterlife? Hmmm...maybe because they don't exist?
Just a thought.
Cheers,
Peter
Michelle Malkin
Peter Kirby <ki...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Cheers,
>Peter
Terrific point to bring up, Peter, that their god doesn't punish people for
doing wrong while they live but waits until after they die. No one can prove
that this god actually does anything or not that way. Any god worth its oats
would zap the wrongdoer immediately, not wait for 10 - 50 years. Of course, the
religious folk could come back with how their god lets the sins accumulate, but
this only makes it worse. This means that, rather than teach an immediate and
educational lesson, their god WANTS people to accumulate sins to be punished
for. In other words, their god is a sadist. That's despicable.
Michelle Malkin
**************************************
Richard Hood
Michelle Malkin wrote:
> Terrific point to bring up, Peter, that their god doesn't punish people for
> doing wrong while they live but waits until after they die. No one can prove
> that this god actually does anything or not that way. Any god worth its oats
> would zap the wrongdoer immediately, not wait for 10 - 50 years. Of course, the
> religious folk could come back with how their god lets the sins accumulate, but
> this only makes it worse. This means that, rather than teach an immediate and
> educational lesson, their god WANTS people to accumulate sins to be punished
> for. In other words, their god is a sadist. That's despicable.
>
> Michelle Malkin
Michelle,
One question? Is the mindspring the place the amoeba get their ideas?
Just two more verses out of the so-called book of myths. If I am so stupid,
and you amoebic brain is so superior, consider these verses: Micah 7:19;
He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and
thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.
"Your sin only accumulates if you don't ask forgiveness." My God is a God of Compassion
and forgiveness."
Revelation 21:1;, And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the
first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
"No more sea! If He cast your sins into the sea, and then there is "no more sea",
He can't even remember your sin! You are the deciding factor in determining if your sins
accumulate!"
Put that amoebic, superior brain, into gear.
Rich
> **************************************
Marjan P.
Richard Hood <ri...@cland.net> wrote in article
<330868...@cland.net>...
> "Your sin only accumulates if you don't ask forgiveness." My God is a
God of Compassion
> and forgiveness."
As I know Christians believe there is hell and there is heaven. If you
sin you go to hell, if you do not or you confess you go to heaven.
Because there are no levels of heaven and hell it does not really
matters if you sin a little or a lot. Very educative.
Chimera
In article <5dvicv$s...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
red...@ibm.net (Wayne Delia) wrote:
>In <33013706....@news.insync.net>, firew...@insync.net
(erikc) writes:
>>On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:27:45 -0800
>>ka...@polympus.net (Jim Nichols)
>>as message <karl-10029...@papm035.olympus.net>
>>-- posted from: alt.atheism:
>
>(More piggybacking as I thankfully missed the original post.)
>
>>>|Stereotypical Christian is beyond me.
>
Christian. You
>oppose and resist original thought, and you seem to think that's a
good thing.
>
>>>|I haven't the slightest idea what
>>>|that would be. Sounds like mindless drivel (sorry).
>
>Your ministers are no doubt proud of your acceptance of your own
ignorance.
>
>
will surely
>>>|find out how little you are.
>
league. I'll even buy
>you a beer, a pretzel, and a pennant before demonstrating exactly
why you're
>a Christian idiot.
>
>"I am evil Ho-mer! I am evil Ho-mer!" - Evil Homer Simpson,
>dancing on the grave of Good Homer Simpson
>
Hell...nothing better to do that worry about what the Christians are
doing!?? Get a LIFE fuckwit!
*PLONK*
--
Dread your dreams!
-Chimera
Michelle Malkin
Richard Hood <ri...@cland.net> wrote:
>Michelle Malkin wrote:
>> Terrific point to bring up, Peter, that their god doesn't punish people for
>> doing wrong while they live but waits until after they die. No one can prove
>> that this god actually does anything or not that way. Any god worth its oats
>> would zap the wrongdoer immediately, not wait for 10 - 50 years. Of course, the
>> religious folk could come back with how their god lets the sins accumulate, but
>> this only makes it worse. This means that, rather than teach an immediate and
>> educational lesson, their god WANTS people to accumulate sins to be punished
>> for. In other words, their god is a sadist. That's despicable.
>>
>> Michelle Malkin
>Michelle,
>One question? Is the mindspring the place the amoeba get their ideas?
>Just two more verses out of the so-called book of myths. If I am so stupid,
>and you amoebic brain is so superior, consider these verses: Micah 7:19;
>He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and
>thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.
>"Your sin only accumulates if you don't ask forgiveness." My God is a God of Compassion
>and forgiveness."
>Revelation 21:1;, And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the
>first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
>"No more sea! If He cast your sins into the sea, and then there is "no more sea",
>He can't even remember your sin! You are the deciding factor in determining if your sins
>accumulate!"
>Put that amoebic, superior brain, into gear.
>Rich
>> **************************************
Richard, Richard, Richard, this is so unChristian of you. Is this how you 'turn
the other cheek'? You have already given up the good fight and have resorted to
name-calling and childish behavior. In other words, your attempts at
'witnessing' have been a total failure. Go away, child, before you fall down and
hurt yourself. And, stop using those four-letter words!
Michelle Malkin
**************************************
erikc
On 17 Feb 1997 14:46:12 GMT
"Marjan P." <pre...@usa.net>
as message <01bc1ce1$7e7ef4c0$c22002c1@marjan>
-- posted from: alt.atheism:
>|God of Compassion
>|> and forgiveness."
>|
>|sin you go to hell, if you do not or you confess you go to heaven.
>|Because there are no levels of heaven and hell it does not really
>|matters if you sin a little or a lot. Very educative.
And if you do not believe these things, it scares the bejeezuz out of the xians
because they have no emotional and psychological sway over you. That's when
the ostracism, insults, discrimination, and in some cases, violence begins. It
simply ruins a fundy's day when somebody is able to live thier lives without
having to constantly look over thier shoulder wondering if the Big Bad God-
whatziz is going to zap them for some minor transgression.
Erikc. fire...@insync.net
Creationist: an ape-descended bible college graduate
Rynne McCoy
Michelle Malkin (malk...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: >> this only makes it worse. This means that, rather than teach an immediate and
: >> educational lesson, their god WANTS people to accumulate sins to be punished
: >> for. In other words, their god is a sadist. That's despicable.
: >>
: >> Michelle Malkin
Good call Michelle. I've been making this point for years and it's good
to see I'm not the only one. I also have YET to hear ANY of them ANSWER
to it -- i.e., with a REAL answer, not emotional reaction to calling
their god SADIST but something to clarify/respond to the issue of
retributive vengeance rather than an educational lesson.
: >> **************************************
: Richard, Richard, Richard, this is so unChristian of you. Is this how you 'turn
: the other cheek'? You have already given up the good fight and have resorted to
: name-calling and childish behavior. In other words, your attempts at
: 'witnessing' have been a total failure. Go away, child, before you fall down and
: hurt yourself. And, stop using those four-letter words!
:
: Michelle Malkin
: **************************************
I could not have said it better. (pinching fruit)... Well, this one's
rotten. Might as well shop elsewhere!
Michelle Malkin
she...@intrepid.net (Rynne McCoy) wrote:
Thanks. It's been interesting watching Richard self-destruct so quickly. This is
the kind of comment that Christians can't really answer. All they can do is
quote pointlessly (since their quotes mean nothing to atheists) from their
bible.
I'd also like to thank the person who contacted me in e-mail about this. I hit
the cancel button by mistake when trying to send a thank you message.
Michelle MAlkin
**************************************
Marcelo Cantos
Michelle Malkin wrote:
> the other cheek'? You have already given up the good fight and have resorted to
> name-calling and childish behavior. In other words, your attempts at
> 'witnessing' have been a total failure. Go away, child, before you fall down and
> hurt yourself. And, stop using those four-letter words!
Please don't take Richard as an example of a good christian. I am
a christian, yet I agree with you that such behaviour is totally
inappropriate.
--
___________________________________________________________________
Marcelo Cantos, Research Assistant mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au
Multimedia Database Systems Group __/_ _ Tel 61-3-9282-2497
723 Swanston St, Carlton VIC 3053, Aus/ralia ><_>Fax 61-3-9282-2490
/
.:.Richard.:.
malk...@mindspring.com (Michelle Malkin) wrote:
| Peter Kirby <ki...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<<snipped for bandwidth>>
| >Also, did you ever wonder why these gods can't give punishments and
| >rewards until the afterlife? Hmmm...maybe because they don't exist?
| >Just a thought.
| >Cheers,
| >Peter
| Terrific point to bring up, Peter, that their god doesn't punish people for
| doing wrong while they live but waits until after they die. No one can prove
| that this god actually does anything or not that way. Any god worth its oats
| would zap the wrongdoer immediately, not wait for 10 - 50 years. Of course, the
| religious folk could come back with how their god lets the sins accumulate, but
| this only makes it worse. This means that, rather than teach an immediate and
| educational lesson, their god WANTS people to accumulate sins to be punished
| for. In other words, their god is a sadist. That's despicable.
| Michelle Malkin
| **************************************
Hi Michelle. This whole punishment thing seems to me to be a misdirection.
Here's why:
Naturally speaking, there are many everyday activities which are potentially
dangerous to us. Among these are: spilling a hot beverage in our laps, crossing
the street without looking both ways, etc. These I label *consequential*
dangers, and if I warn you of these but you choose to ignore my warning and are,
consequently, injured, I haven't punished you; you yourself have brought this
"punishment" upon yourself through your own relevant action/inaction.
It's the same way with God. He tells us what kinds of things are beneficial and
detrimental to our life experience both in the Bible and by the guidance of His
Spirit. To the extent that I yield to His declarations, I am *rewarded* with
safety, insight, hope, etc. Conversely, to the extent that I ignore Him, I am
*punished* with danger, disappointment, fear, etc.
God isn't sadistic, He is patient. I don't ignore the disobedience of my
children, nor do I "slam" them at every minute (my-'noot sp?) violation of my
authority. I teach them and train them and correct them and, yes, occasionally
punish them. Sometimes that punishment is active (I stand them in a corner for
"timeout" or take away a privelage) and sometimes it is passive (I anticipate
the negative consequences of their actions and allow the progression to occur in
an environment of safety monitoring).
I perceive God similarly. He has warned us of the coarser dangers in the Bible
and through the ministries of various "figureheads" (for lack of a better term)
of Christianity, while He continues to teach, train, correct and punish (as
appropriate to the situation) us in our daily walk with Him.
Its how every concerned, loving parent relates to their children....
______ _ _ _
(_____ \ (_) | | | |
_____) ) _ ____ | |__ _____ ____ __| |
| __ / | | / ___)| _ \ (____ | / ___) / _ |
| | \ \ | |( (___ | | | |/ ___ || | ( (_| |
|_| |_||_| \____)|_| |_|\_____||_| \____|
rha...@cybercomm.net
Anti-Spam Tactic: replace the '*' with '@' when replying to
me via e-mail as I've been inundated with spam !!!
Wayne Delia
In <Pine.SOL.3.93.970212231048.28480A-100000@dingo>, "Marna T. Renteria" <rent...@eng.fsu.edu> writes:
>
>> What you, and indeed just about all of the fundies who post here, don't
>> seem to understand is that atheists don't believe in hell (well, at least
>> most of us don't.)
>>
>> Therefore, the threat of going there upon our deaths is unlikely to frighten us.
>>
>Just because you don't believe in hell doesn't make it true.
You've made a typical fundy mistake. You meant "false" instead of "true."
Honest - this is not sarcastic. The proposition is "Hell exists." Just because I
don't believe in the proposition doesn't make the propostion *false.*
>Just because we believe in God and hell doesn't make them true.
Exactly. Nor is it reasonable to assume "exists/doesn't exist" implies a 50/50
chance. Or a 1/99 chance. Or a 1/999999999 chance.
>We all shall see what's true.
No, we shall not. Vision is an organic life process available to those with
photorecptor capabilities, such as human eyes. After we're dead, these
organic life processes cease to function. We can't see anything, and that's
when we'd need vision the most in order to determine whether your fantasy
is reality.
Wayne Delia
>One question? Is the mindspring the place the amoeba get their ideas?
An amoeba, placed in a layer of water in a Petri dish, will actually attempt to
get away from a drop of dilute sulfuric acid placed in the dish. They're not
completely stupid.
>Just two more verses out of the so-called book of myths. If I am so stupid,
>and you amoebic brain is so superior, consider these verses:
Mercifully, I threw out those verses, as they are quite irrelevant. Further, by
simply mentioning an amoeba, you don't establish that Michelle's brain is
"amoebic". However, I think a more serious problem is with your self-esteem.
You have admitted that an amoeba's brain is superior to your own. Does
Christianity do that to you?
Wayne Delia
In <5e8oqf$7...@camel5.mindspring.com>, malk...@mindspring.com (Michelle Malkin) writes:
>Peter Kirby <ki...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Also, did you ever wonder why these gods can't give punishments and
>>rewards until the afterlife? Hmmm...maybe because they don't exist?
>>Just a thought.
>Terrific point to bring up, Peter, that their god doesn't punish people for
>doing wrong while they live but waits until after they die.
Thomas Paine made a very strong analogy between the need for faith to believe
in an afterlife to redress the injustices of life, and a shipment of rotten fruit. One
would not open a crate of oranges, notice that the entire top layer was rotten,
and reasonably conclude that the lower levels of oranges must therefore be
fresh, to redress the injustice of the rotten top level.
>No one can prove
>that this god actually does anything or not that way.
Aye, that's the rub - you can't disprove it, either, so therefore there's an
unknown probability that they might be right. Of course, that illogic doesn't
apply when other religions make their claims, because the Christians know by
faith that they're right, and everybody else is wrong.
>Any god worth its oats
>would zap the wrongdoer immediately, not wait for 10 - 50 years.
Like the Old Testament God, sometimes. Lot's wife - looked back, which for some
reason was a sin, and then POOF: instant raw materials for the Morton's Salt
company.
>Of course, the
>religious folk could come back with how their god lets the sins accumulate, but
>this only makes it worse.
That argument, weak as it is, seems to strengthen the need to believe in Paine's
analogy above - that heaven/hell MUST exist in order to remove the injustice of
sins of this life.
>This means that, rather than teach an immediate and
>educational lesson, their god WANTS people to accumulate sins to be punished
>for. In other words, their god is a sadist. That's despicable.
No argument here!
Stix
Richard Hood posted the following to alt.atheism,
>One question? Is the mindspring the place the amoeba get their ideas?
No. Amoeba's don't *have* ideas.
>Just two more verses out of the so-called book of myths.
Nope.
> If I am so stupid,
And you ARE....
>and you amoebic brain is so superior,
Presupposes she has an amoebic brain (whatever that is supposed to be)
> consider these verses:
Nope.
<snip biblical garbage>
>"No more sea! If He cast your sins into the sea, and then there is "no more sea",
>He can't even remember your sin! You are the deciding factor in determining if your sins
>accumulate!"
Gibberish! Piss off Richard, you're just *another* useless tool.
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Eric Gunnerson
.:.Richard.:. <rha...@cybercomm.net> conveniently avoided the question in
article <5ec6c1$c...@crow.cybercomm.net>...
for
prove
> | that this god actually does anything or not that way. Any god worth its
oats
> | would zap the wrongdoer immediately, not wait for 10 - 50 years. Of
course, the
> | religious folk could come back with how their god lets the sins
accumulate, but
immediate and
> | educational lesson, their god WANTS people to accumulate sins to be
punished
> | for. In other words, their god is a sadist. That's despicable.
>
> | **************************************
>
> Hi Michelle. This whole punishment thing seems to me to be a
misdirection.
> Here's why:
>
> Naturally speaking, there are many everyday activities which are
potentially
> dangerous to us. Among these are: spilling a hot beverage in our laps,
crossing
> the street without looking both ways, etc. These I label *consequential*
> dangers, and if I warn you of these but you choose to ignore my warning
and are,
> consequently, injured, I haven't punished you; you yourself have brought
this
> "punishment" upon yourself through your own relevant action/inaction.
I find it hard to view something like spilling coffee in my lap as wrong.
Painful and stupid, yes.
> It's the same way with God. He tells us what kinds of things are
beneficial and
> detrimental to our life experience both in the Bible and by the guidance
of His
> Spirit. To the extent that I yield to His declarations, I am *rewarded*
with
> safety, insight, hope, etc. Conversely, to the extent that I ignore Him,
I am
> *punished* with danger, disappointment, fear, etc.
But the rewards and punishment that you speak of have nothing to do with
God - they are all generated from within your own mind. People are fearful
of god because of what they believe, not because of any action god takes.
> God isn't sadistic, He is patient. I don't ignore the disobedience of my
> children, nor do I "slam" them at every minute (my-'noot sp?) violation
of my
> authority. I teach them and train them and correct them and, yes,
occasionally
> punish them. Sometimes that punishment is active (I stand them in a
corner for
> "timeout" or take away a privelage) and sometimes it is passive (I
anticipate
> the negative consequences of their actions and allow the progression to
occur in
> an environment of safety monitoring).
But there's no interaction of god.
Does he make you stand in a corner?
Does he take away your driving rights?
Does he make you clean your room?
No. He doesn't do *anything*, and the only hold that he has over people is
their beliefs.
>
> I perceive God similarly. He has warned us of the coarser dangers in the
Bible
> and through the ministries of various "figureheads" (for lack of a better
term)
> of Christianity, while He continues to teach, train, correct and punish
(as
> appropriate to the situation) us in our daily walk with Him.
>
> Its how every concerned, loving parent relates to their children....
It's how an *absent* parent relates to their children...
Yang Hu
> I perceive God similarly. He has warned us of the coarser dangers in the Bible
> and through the ministries of various "figureheads" (for lack of a better term)
> of Christianity, while He continues to teach, train, correct and punish (as
> appropriate to the situation) us in our daily walk with Him.
>
the dawn of the third age begins when the Gods get out of the way of
their progeny, assuming, of course that there exists a god out there. a
sketchy assumption if I ever heard of one....
yang
Aaron Bilger
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:10:42 GMT, rha...@cybercomm.net (.:.Richard.:.) wrote:
>
>I perceive God similarly. He has warned us of the coarser dangers in the Bible
>and through the ministries of various "figureheads" (for lack of a better term)
>of Christianity, while He continues to teach, train, correct and punish (as
>appropriate to the situation) us in our daily walk with Him.
>
If a parent were to punish their child by roasting them in the oven, that
'loving' parent would appropriately be locked away.
Aaron
Stephen Botha
> > In article <5ec6c1$c...@crow.cybercomm.net>, rha...@cybercomm.net (.:.Richard.:.) writes:
> > > | Terrific point to bring up, Peter, that their god doesn't punish people for
> > > | doing wrong while they live but waits until after they die. No one can prove
> > > | that this god actually does anything or not that way. Any god worth its oats
> > > | would zap the wrongdoer immediately, not wait for 10 - 50 years. Of course, the
> > > | religious folk could come back with how their god lets the sins accumulate, but
> > > | this only makes it worse. This means that, rather than teach an immediate and
> > > | educational lesson, their god WANTS people to accumulate sins to be punished
> > > | for. In other words, their god is a sadist. That's despicable.
> > >
> > > | Michelle Malkin
> > > | **************************************
> > >
> > > Hi Michelle. This whole punishment thing seems to me to be a misdirection.
> > > Here's why:
> > > Naturally speaking, there are many everyday activities which are potentially
> > > dangerous to us. Among these are: spilling a hot beverage in our laps, crossing
> > > the street without looking both ways, etc. These I label *consequential*
> > > dangers, and if I warn you of these but you choose to ignore my warning and are,
> > > consequently, injured, I haven't punished you; you yourself have brought this
> > > "punishment" upon yourself through your own relevant action/inaction.
> > >
> > > It's the same way with God. He tells us what kinds of things are beneficial and
> > > detrimental to our life experience both in the Bible and by the guidance of His
> > > Spirit. To the extent that I yield to His declarations, I am *rewarded* with
> > > safety, insight, hope, etc. Conversely, to the extent that I ignore Him, I am
> > > *punished* with danger, disappointment, fear, etc.
> > >
> > > God isn't sadistic, He is patient. I don't ignore the disobedience of my
> > > children, nor do I "slam" them at every minute (my-'noot sp?) violation of my
> > > authority. I teach them and train them and correct them and, yes, occasionally
> > > punish them. Sometimes that punishment is active (I stand them in a corner for
> > > "timeout" or take away a privelage) and sometimes it is passive (I anticipate
> > > the negative consequences of their actions and allow the progression to occur in
> > > an environment of safety monitoring).
> > >
> > > I perceive God similarly. He has warned us of the coarser dangers in the Bible
> > > and through the ministries of various "figureheads" (for lack of a better term)
> > > of Christianity, while He continues to teach, train, correct and punish (as
> > > appropriate to the situation) us in our daily walk with Him.
> > >
> > > Its how every concerned, loving parent relates to their children....
> > >
Er... except your god burns people for eternity. My, that's loving!!!
God sent his son to save us, guess what from... from God's punishments!!
What a guy!! When we look at the victims of the Nazis, at
least their suffering was not eternal. I suppose the large number of people who
through themselves onto the electrified fences at Auscwitz to end their
suffering are in hell now for committing suicide?? And how exactly does a dead
person without nerves feel pain? Does god arrange a new body to allow
the suffering? does he give us extra sensitive nerves to make it worse?
and BTW what about the christian families of atheists? how can anyone
be happy in heaven knowing what's going on downstairs???
Your religion iseems pretty rotten to me.
> > > ______ _ _ _
> > > (_____ \ (_) | | | |
> > > _____) ) _ ____ | |__ _____ ____ __| |
> > > | __ / | | / ___)| _ \ (____ | / ___) / _ |
> > > | | \ \ | |( (___ | | | |/ ___ || | ( (_| |
> > > |_| |_||_| \____)|_| |_|\_____||_| \__
>
>
S B.
.
Michelle Malkin
Marcelo Cantos <mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
Please believe me when I say that I KNOW Richard is not an example of a good
Christian. Good Christians ask people if they want to be witnessed, they don't
force themselves on them. Richard is simply an ignorant, immature and very rude
person.
Hopefully, seeing that other Christians agree with me will teach him a lesson.
Thank you for writing.
Michelle Malkin
***************************************************
Christianity says to 'witness'. It does not say to
annoy possible converts to the point of making them
your enemy.
***************************************************
John McCoy
: : >> educational lesson, their god WANTS people to accumulate sins to be punished
: : >> for. In other words, their god is a sadist. That's despicable.
: : >>
: : >> Michelle Malkin
: Good call Michelle. I've been making this point for years and it's good
: to see I'm not the only one. I also have YET to hear ANY of them ANSWER
: to it -- i.e., with a REAL answer, not emotional reaction to calling
: their god SADIST but something to clarify/respond to the issue of
Michelle, God is not a sadist. We are. One atheist told me that if Christ
did return he would not go along with him and rather suffer the
consequences. That is sadism Michelle. Read Revelations 21:4. It says:
"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;and there shall be no
more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more
pain: for the former things are passed away."
People would rather have herpes, AIDs,syphillis, abortions,lie and curse
than to receive eternal life. I call that sadism, Michelle.
: retributive vengeance rather than an educational lesson.
: : >> **************************************
: : Richard, Richard, Richard, this is so unChristian of you. Is this how you 'turn
: : the other cheek'? You have already given up the good fight and have resorted to
: : name-calling and childish behavior. In other words, your attempts at
: : 'witnessing' have been a total failure. Go away, child, before you fall down and
: : hurt yourself. And, stop using those four-letter words!
: :
IG (Slim) Simpson
malk...@mindspring.com (Michelle Malkin) wrote:
[snip]
>Thanks. It's been interesting watching Richard self-destruct so quickly. This is
>the kind of comment that Christians can't really answer. All they can do is
>quote pointlessly (since their quotes mean nothing to atheists) from their
>bible.
>Michelle MAlkin
Nice observation, Michelle. Note how John McCoy (in his posting
below) again quotes scripture. When will they realize that they might
as well quote Alice in Wonderland for all the difference it makes?
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Richard Hood (ri...@cland.net) wrote:
: Michelle,
: If I am so stupid, and you amoebic brain is so superior,
: consider these verses:
[Snippity-do-dah]
*Quoting verses?* BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Just what do bible verses mean to
atheists? You may as well quote from a Danielle Steele novel!
Wayne Delia
In <5ec6c1$c...@crow.cybercomm.net>, rha...@cybercomm.net (.:.Richard.:.) writes:
>malk...@mindspring.com (Michelle Malkin) wrote:
Hey Richard, what's up? How're you doing on interpreting Isaiah 7:14-16 as a
legitimate fulfilled prophecy of Jesus? After that, you've got 47 more to go. I
owe you a e-mail reply on why I consider you intellectually dishonest, but since
my son got a multimedia game, computer time at home is at a premium.
>Hi Michelle. This whole punishment thing seems to me to be a misdirection.
>Here's why:
Mainly, it's preferable for a believer to pretend that God doesn't inflict punishment
or condemn people.
>Naturally speaking, there are many everyday activities which are potentially
>dangerous to us. Among these are: spilling a hot beverage in our laps, crossing
>the street without looking both ways, etc. These I label *consequential*
>dangers, and if I warn you of these but you choose to ignore my warning and are,
>consequently, injured, I haven't punished you; you yourself have brought this
>"punishment" upon yourself through your own relevant action/inaction.
One characteristic of these "consequential" damages are that you have no
control over them apart from warning others about what might happen if they
cross the street without looking, etc. Let's see how well this characteristic
applies to God and the afterlife.
>It's the same way with God. He tells us what kinds of things are beneficial and
>detrimental to our life experience both in the Bible and by the guidance of His
>Spirit.
Uh-oh, sounds like it doesn't apply too well. Sin is not really much more than
disobeying God, and the Bible explicitly describes incidents such as in 1 Samuel
15, where God's orders are certainly not in line with "beneficial to our life
experience."
>To the extent that I yield to His declarations, I am *rewarded* with
>safety, insight, hope, etc.
Suppose you were given similar declarations that God gave to Saul in 1 Samuel
15. Would you carry them out? What "safety, insight, hope, etc." would be gained
from exterminating an entire nation because their ancestors resisted having their
land occupied by the ancestors of your nation?
>Conversely, to the extent that I ignore Him, I am
>*punished* with danger, disappointment, fear, etc.
In 1 Samuel 15, Saul was punished for "ignoring" God. Saul was instructed to kill
every Amalekite (you know, man and women, infant and suckling, ox and ass,
etc.) and Saul killed all but one person - the king of Amalek, whom he took
hostage, and eventually killed anyway - and found himself demoted, disgraced,
sackcloth, ashes on head, and so forth. Anyway, if God communicated to you an
order to wipe out an entire nation of mostly innocent people, assuming you had
the means to do so, what "danger, disappointment, fear, etc." would you incur
if you refused to kill anyone?
>God isn't sadistic, He is patient.
He certainly is. He waited about 350 years to avenge the Amalek resistance to the
Hebrews during the Exodus, and His order to exterminate the Amalek descendents
wasn't sadistic because... because... well, I'll let you fill in the rest of the sentence.
Now would be a good time to say it's necessary to know the Scriptures in their
original Hebrew, or to beg the question, or to claim it's way too involved for you
to attempt to explain.
>I don't ignore the disobedience of my
>children, nor do I "slam" them at every minute (my-'noot sp?) violation of my
>authority.
Suppose it was less than a "minute" (which you have spelled correctly) violation.
Suppose it was a case where your children renounced being related to you, when
they were, oh, say, about 15 years old. Would you kill them? Would you kill their
friends who you think influenced them to rebel against you? Would you condemn
them to eternal torture? Or would you attempt to do something to resolve the
problem? I'd like to think you'd take the last option, and if you do, I'd consider
you on a higher moral standard than your God, if the Bible is to be believed.
>I teach them and train them and correct them and, yes, occasionally
>punish them. Sometimes that punishment is active (I stand them in a corner for
>"timeout" or take away a privelage) and sometimes it is passive (I anticipate
>the negative consequences of their actions and allow the progression to occur in
>an environment of safety monitoring).
Hopefully (and thankfully, I'll assume) you don't inflict eternal punishments on
them for finite or trivial offenses.
>I perceive God similarly. He has warned us of the coarser dangers in the Bible
>and through the ministries of various "figureheads" (for lack of a better term)
>of Christianity, while He continues to teach, train, correct and punish (as
>appropriate to the situation) us in our daily walk with Him.
The "coarser dangers" of the Bible are inflicted by God. The analogous dangers
to which your children are subject to are certainly not inflicted by you. Nor can
you control the extent to which your children are exposed to the dangers they
come in contact with, but presumably God can. You don't put one child in favor
over the others and take that one child's side in all fights or arguments among
your children, as God has done with the Hebrews against the rest of the world.
>Its how every concerned, loving parent relates to their children....
..as long as you're willing to overlook mass murder as a child-raising technique.
.:.Richard.:.
"Eric Gunnerson" <eri...@microsoft.com.nospam> wrote:
| .:.Richard.:. <rha...@cybercomm.net> conveniently avoided the question in
| article <5ec6c1$c...@crow.cybercomm.net>...
Eric, I'm recently back from vacation where I had no access to the internet for
eleven days ... the 'topmost' article in this particular thread (that I was able
to retrieve from my news server) was michelle's (the one I responded to).
What was the question you *wrongly* accused me of avoiding...?
______ _ _ _
(_____ \ (_) | | | |
_____) ) _ ____ | |__ _____ ____ __| |
| __ / | | / ___)| _ \ (____ | / ___) / _ |
| | \ \ | |( (___ | | | |/ ___ || | ( (_| |
|_| |_||_| \____)|_| |_|\_____||_| \____|
rha...@cybercomm.net
.:.Richard.:.
bil...@cs.purdue.edu (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
| On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:10:42 GMT, rha...@cybercomm.net (.:.Richard.:.) wrote:
| >
| >I perceive God similarly. He has warned us of the coarser dangers in the Bible
| >and through the ministries of various "figureheads" (for lack of a better term)
| >of Christianity, while He continues to teach, train, correct and punish (as
| >appropriate to the situation) us in our daily walk with Him.
| >
| >Its how every concerned, loving parent relates to their children....
| If a parent were to punish their child by roasting them in the oven, that
| 'loving' parent would appropriately be locked away.
Agreed. But God is not roasting people in the oven, he's warning them that the
oven exists and is fatally hot, as well as telling them how *not* to get burned!
Some kids just never listen until *after* they get burned....
.:.Richard.:.
phy...@phys.canterbury.ac.nz (Stephen Botha) wrote:
| > > In article <5ec6c1$c...@crow.cybercomm.net>, rha...@cybercomm.net (.:.Richard.:.) writes:
| > > > | Terrific point to bring up, Peter, that their god doesn't punish people for
| > > > | doing wrong while they live but waits until after they die. No one can prove
| > > > | that this god actually does anything or not that way. Any god worth its oats
| > > > | would zap the wrongdoer immediately, not wait for 10 - 50 years. Of course, the
| > > > | religious folk could come back with how their god lets the sins accumulate, but
| > > > | this only makes it worse. This means that, rather than teach an immediate and
| > > > | educational lesson, their god WANTS people to accumulate sins to be punished
| > > > | for. In other words, their god is a sadist. That's despicable.
| > > >
| > > > | Michelle Malkin
| > > > | **************************************
| > > >
| > > > Hi Michelle. This whole punishment thing seems to me to be a misdirection.
| > > > Here's why:
| > > > Naturally speaking, there are many everyday activities which are potentially
| > > > dangerous to us. Among these are: spilling a hot beverage in our laps, crossing
| > > > the street without looking both ways, etc. These I label *consequential*
| > > > dangers, and if I warn you of these but you choose to ignore my warning and are,
| > > > consequently, injured, I haven't punished you; you yourself have brought this
| > > > "punishment" upon yourself through your own relevant action/inaction.
| > > >
| > > > It's the same way with God. He tells us what kinds of things are beneficial and
| > > > detrimental to our life experience both in the Bible and by the guidance of His
| > > > Spirit. To the extent that I yield to His declarations, I am *rewarded* with
| > > > safety, insight, hope, etc. Conversely, to the extent that I ignore Him, I am
| > > > *punished* with danger, disappointment, fear, etc.
| > > >
| > > > God isn't sadistic, He is patient. I don't ignore the disobedience of my
| > > > children, nor do I "slam" them at every minute (my-'noot sp?) violation of my
| > > > authority. I teach them and train them and correct them and, yes, occasionally
| > > > punish them. Sometimes that punishment is active (I stand them in a corner for
| > > > "timeout" or take away a privelage) and sometimes it is passive (I anticipate
| > > > the negative consequences of their actions and allow the progression to occur in
| > > > an environment of safety monitoring).
| > > >
| > > > I perceive God similarly. He has warned us of the coarser dangers in the Bible
| > > > and through the ministries of various "figureheads" (for lack of a better term)
| > > > of Christianity, while He continues to teach, train, correct and punish (as
| > > > appropriate to the situation) us in our daily walk with Him.
| > > >
| > > > Its how every concerned, loving parent relates to their children....
| > > >
| Er... except your god burns people for eternity. My, that's loving!!!
How do you rationalize your criticism against God when it is you who has been
given the option to choose salvation or condemnation, and you have chosen
condemnation?
| God sent his son to save us, guess what from... from God's punishments!!
Wrong again. God sent His son to save us from sin (singular). Sin is most
easily apprehended as a "genetic" defect in your spirit, and this defect cannot
be "fixed", it must be destroyed, hence the concept of being "born again"
(spiritually recreated). If you don't allow God to kill off the sin-infected
spirit and put a sin-free spirit within you, that sin-infected spirit is the one
thing that prohibits your admission into heaven -- nothing else stands between
you and God's favor!.
It's not the things that we do that keep us from heaven, it's who we are,
spiritually, that grants or forbids our citizenship in His kingdom. You know
from all the postings that appear here, and likely from your interpersonal
acquaintences with Christians, that we don't become faultless in our behavior
just because we've allowed God to replace our tainted spirit (tho' we'd like to
be ;)
The reality of life and living in this world (which is temporarily governed by
the devil as a consequence of Adam's rebellion in Eden) is that each of us,
Christian and non-Christian, are tempted to do wrong things, and we all
occasionally give in to temptations. Christians ask to be forgiven and cleansed
because of what Jesus did for us, while non-Christians voluntarily allow the
violations to accrue, rationalizing their behavior as "normal", or comparitively
judging the action by saying things like, "...but at least it wasn't as bad
as....", or just by trying to do better next time.
Whatever the non-Christian response, the simple reality of the situation is that
the sin-infected spirit remains within them, and the tally of their sins
(plural) continues to increase; the Christian's reality is that he is a new
creation by God's doing, and his daily mistakes are forgiven and cleansed by the
blood of Jesus.
This shouldn't become a crutch so that Christians can behave any way they like,
rather, it is a means to deal with our humanity until the fulfillment of God's
eternal plan.
| What a guy!! When we look at the victims of the Nazis, at
| least their suffering was not eternal. I suppose the large number of people who
| through themselves onto the electrified fences at Auscwitz to end their
| suffering are in hell now for committing suicide?? And how exactly does a dead
I don't know where they are, and I believe anyone who declares otherwise is
presumptuous (sp?). The situation you refer to was a horrific era in human
history, and I'm confident that those circumstances bear strongly upon the
victim's motives and actions, as well as the consideration of God.
| person without nerves feel pain? Does god arrange a new body to allow
| the suffering? does he give us extra sensitive nerves to make it worse?
AFAIK, the resurrection is universally applicable to "saint & sinner" alike.
It's *where* we spend eternity that differs, not in what form.
| and BTW what about the christian families of atheists? how can anyone
| be happy in heaven knowing what's going on downstairs???
God promises that heaven will be a place where no pain, suffering, strife,
sorrow, death, etc., will exist. I don't know how that relates to family
members, but I do recall Jesus telling a group of Pharisees (in response to
their asking Him whose wife a woman would be if she married a man, he died, his
brother marries her to fulfill the law, then he dies, etc.) that they were in
error because they didn't know the scriptures -- that in heaven there will be
neither marrying nor giving to marry... so I suspect that relationships as we
currently percieve/understand them are different there.
| Your religion iseems pretty rotten to me.
It appears to me that you know very little about my religion, and what you claim
to know is the traditional propagation of the misunderstandings and prejudices
of those who've come before you.
Stephen Botha
In article <5ef4q0$7...@crow.cybercomm.net>, rha...@cybercomm.net (.:.Richard.:.) writes:
> bil...@cs.purdue.edu (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
>
> | On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:10:42 GMT, rha...@cybercomm.net (.:.Richard.:.) wrote:
> | >
> | >and through the ministries of various "figureheads" (for lack of a better term)
> | >of Christianity, while He continues to teach, train, correct and punish (as
> | >appropriate to the situation) us in our daily walk with Him.
> | >
> | >Its how every concerned, loving parent relates to their children....
>
> | 'loving' parent would appropriately be locked away.
>
> Agreed. But God is not roasting people in the oven, he's warning them that the
> oven exists and is fatally hot, as well as telling them how *not* to get burned!
>
> Some kids just never listen until *after* they get burned....
>
> (_____ \ (_) | | | |
> _____) ) _ ____ | |__ _____ ____ __| |
> | __ / | | / ___)| _ \ (____ | / ___) / _ |
> | | \ \ | |( (___ | | | |/ ___ || | ( (_| |
> |_| |_||_| \____)|_| |_|\_____||_| \____|
> rha...@cybercomm.net
>
yeah, but he's the one who could put out the fire, but dosen't... I wonder
why!! If your kid fell into an oven Richard after you warned him about the
danger, would you leave him there as a punishment, or turn down the heat???
Your religion is insane. Anyone who could worship your god is a loon.
..
Brian E. Clark
rha...@cybercomm.net says...
> Naturally speaking, there are many everyday activities which
> are potentially dangerous to us.
Yes, there exist, external to us and outside our ability to eliminate,
dangers we must avoid.
> Among these are: spilling a hot beverage in our laps, crossing
> the street without looking both ways, etc. These I label
> *consequential* dangers, and if I warn you of these but you choose to
> ignore my warning and are, consequently, injured, I haven't punished
> you; you yourself have brought this "punishment" upon yourself through
> your own relevant action/inaction.
Agreed, because the existence of the danger is outside your control.
You neither created the peril, nor can you remove it. Hot water scalds
-- that's not your fault, and you cannot make it such that hot water
doesn't burn.
> It's the same way with God.
Uh, no it's not -- not at all. What could make you make so foolish a
comparison? God does not live an a universe of external consequences.
In the case of God, the dangers which beset us exist because God put
them there. God could remove the dangers at any point. God arranged
the universe such that hot water would burn you. He did it
deliberately. He *wanted* hot water to burn you. From God's
perspective, by no means was hot water obliged to cause burns. God
*chose* that quality.
Now, some may ask whether God wasn't using the avoidance of hot water
as a means of demonstrating the importance of heeding good godly
advice. But that's just chasing the point. One needs such advice only
to avoid mishaps, and the mishaps exist only because God created them.
It makes no sense to ask, "What would we learn without the mishaps?"
because such learning has value only if there *are* mishaps.
> He tells us what kinds of things are beneficial and
> detrimental to our life experience both in the Bible and
> by the guidance of His Spirit.
Things are detrimental only because God made them that way. The wages
of sin is death only because God decided that sinning would lead to
death. It didn't have to be that way. Thorns hurt because God purposed
that they do; thorns could have tickled. Some mushrooms are poisonous;
all mushrooms, indeed all plants, could have been edible. Sure,
because of the existence of nasty plant life, we've learned to check
for prickly vines and toxic fruits. But the point is, we wouldn't NEED
to do so if there were no thorns or deadly plants. Our knowledge has
value only inside the system that requires it.
--
Brian E. Clark
br...@telerama.lm.com
Wayne Delia
In <5efp0r$15...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, red...@ibm.net (Wayne Delia) writes:
>In <5ec6c1$c...@crow.cybercomm.net>, rha...@cybercomm.net (.:.Richard.:.) writes:
>>I don't ignore the disobedience of my
>>children, nor do I "slam" them at every minute (my-'noot sp?) violation of my
>>authority.
>
>Suppose it was less than a "minute" (which you have spelled correctly) violation.
Dang. Make that "less of a 'minute' violation", or equivalently, "more than a
minute violation". Sorry.
Damian Hammontree
in <5ec6c1$c...@crow.cybercomm.net>, .:.Richard.:. (rha...@cybercomm.net) writes:
>malk...@mindspring.com (Michelle Malkin) wrote:
>Hi Michelle. This whole punishment thing seems to me to be a misdirection.
>Here's why:
>Naturally speaking, there are many everyday activities which are potentially
>dangerous to us. Among these are: spilling a hot beverage in our laps, crossing
>the street without looking both ways, etc. These I label *consequential*
>dangers, and if I warn you of these but you choose to ignore my warning and are,
>consequently, injured, I haven't punished you; you yourself have brought this
>"punishment" upon yourself through your own relevant action/inaction.
>It's the same way with God. He tells us what kinds of things are beneficial and
>detrimental to our life experience both in the Bible and by the guidance of His
>Spirit. To the extent that I yield to His declarations, I am *rewarded* with
>safety, insight, hope, etc. Conversely, to the extent that I ignore Him, I am
>*punished* with danger, disappointment, fear, etc.
This is an old saw (read, I heard this exact argument, verbatim, complete
with traffic analogy, only a hundred times growing up - one of the lessons
in catholic priest school has got to be "The Traffic Analogy For Why God
Isn't Responsible").
The analogy happens to fail as the result of Michelle's central point.
Yes, if I cross the street without looking and get creamed, it's my own
fault. But you are conveniently forgetting not only that god created me
(with all of my faults and imperfections, and my free will with all of
its operational parameters), but also that he created the rules of the
game, and forced me (by character of my creation) to participate in it.
If you are trying to assert that god did not set up the "don't believe
implies suffering in hell" rule-of-the-universe, then you are denying
his omnipotence, plain and simple.
I know a lot of christians are fond of making analogies, but you have
got to realize that they are always going to be flawed for the simple
reason that god is the all-powerful creator being of the universe and
everything in it. He's not "just like" my dad, he's not "just like"
traffic... He's "god" fer chrissakes. The analogies _do not work_.
D
--
Damian Hammontree dam...@groucho.med.jhu.edu
"A spokesman for the Lyon Group, producers of _Barney and Friends_, denied
that Barney is an instrument of Satan." --the Advocate, spring 1994
...forever in debt to your priceless advice...
Gully Foyle
On 20 Feb 1997 09:12:44 GMT, mc...@sierra.net (John McCoy) wrote:
>IG (Slim) Simpson (g...@big.sky.net) wrote:
>: >Michelle MAlkin
>: Nice observation, Michelle. Note how John McCoy (in his posting
>: below) again quotes scripture. When will they realize that they might
>: as well quote Alice in Wonderland for all the difference it makes?
>
>Alice in Wonderland wasn't meant to be taken seriously. The Bible
>contains lands, peoples, genealogies, and other things that are
>historically accurate. You won't find that in A in W. Also, A in W
>doesn't take life seriously. It has no moral guidance.
Oh you know something about AIW? It was actually quite a serious book
at the time of its writing as it was a veiled criticism of British
royalty and politics. What's your opinion of Animal Farm, no let me
guess, it's a children's book right?
_________________________________________________________________
Due to unreliable news feed, send me an e-mailed
copy of your follow-up to this post.
Remove the Z at the end of my e-mail address,
this has been placed there to stop junk mail.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Life is as tedious as a twice told tale
Vexing the dull ear of a drowsy man.
the Bard of Avon
_________________________________________________________________
Rynne McCoy
.:.Richard.:. (rha...@cybercomm.net) wrote:
(responding to that):
: | If a parent were to punish their child by roasting them in the oven, that
: | 'loving' parent would appropriately be locked away.
:
: Agreed. But God is not roasting people in the oven, he's warning them that the
: oven exists and is fatally hot, as well as telling them how *not* to get burned!
:
: Some kids just never listen until *after* they get burned....
Okay, then:
(1) who created Hell?
(2) who alone (assuming your God exists) has the power to do away
with it?
(3) in other words, Who Lights The Lake Of Fire???
(4) Who alone (see assumption in #2 above) creates, maintains,
and thus has the power to alter cause & effect?
(5) Kids getting burned get burned cuz they reached out to a hot
stove. NOT because they read something Mom said not to, or watched a TV
show Dad said they shouldn't, or stole a twenty dollar bill from
Grandma's purse! Artificial consequences are ARTIFICIAL. By your
analogy, then, the only thing that should cause someone to "get burned"
is for them to stick their hands in fire. Not FIGURATIVELY but LITERALLY.
Let's face it. If your God and the system you believe He has
created is "reality", then there are serious flaws in the system and
these flaws need to be addressed. Not the least of which is the question
of WHY give everyone an intrinsic, inviolate birthright of
SELF-GOVERNMENT and then say, "if you don't use it to throw it away and
be governed by Me, God, or My Will or My Way, then I will so arrange
Reality that it actually constitutes you 'choosing' to walk into fiery
death." And not the least of which is why your God insists everyone must
be 100% unselfish -- yet everything has to be HIS way???? This is
preposterous, and it's inconsistencies like this that keep anyone not
already suckered into your worldview from even giving it a serious
examination. The very fact that "mere mortals" can think of MUCH more
sane & reasonable alternatives to the Xtian religion/Bible scenario of
life & the world is sufficient evidence that the system is flawed.
BABALON 156 *** SHEDONA 435 : she...@intrepid.net
"My word is my bond
My bond is my will
My will is my what,
And my what is my butt!"
-- Damien Aleister McCoy, age 8
Landis D. Ragon
g...@big.sky.net (IG (Slim) Simpson) wrote:
>malk...@mindspring.com (Michelle Malkin) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>Thanks. It's been interesting watching Richard self-destruct so quickly. This is
>>the kind of comment that Christians can't really answer. All they can do is
>>quote pointlessly (since their quotes mean nothing to atheists) from their
>>bible.
>
>
>>Michelle MAlkin
> Nice observation, Michelle. Note how John McCoy (in his posting
>below) again quotes scripture. When will they realize that they might
>as well quote Alice in Wonderland for all the difference it makes?
>
>
Hummmm, let's see.
'Twas Brillig and the Slithy Toves
Did gyre and gymbal in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogroves and
the Monraths outgrape.
Rule 42: All persons over a mile high are to leave the court!
Actually, that makes *MUCH* more sense than the Babble-ing of the
xtian invaders.
(Lewis Carole is much more fun to read than the Babble, too!)
Stix
J<censored>y posted the following to alt.atheism,
>Michelle, God is not a sadist. We are. One atheist told me that if Christ
>did return he would not go along with him and rather suffer the
>consequences. That is sadism Michelle.
No it's not you dopey fuck. It's *masochism.*
<snip god babble>
>People would rather have herpes, AIDs,syphillis, abortions,lie and curse
>than to receive eternal life. I call that sadism, Michelle.
Well you're an idiot, but then again everyone already knew that.
Try checking your dictionary before opening your stupid yap.
Sadism: (n) the gaining of pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, from
infliction of suffering on another person.
Masochism: (n) 1) a condition in which pleasure, especially sexual
pleasure, is derived from pain or being humiliated. 2) A tendency to take
pleasure from one's own suffering.
YOU, J<censored>y are a masochist. You constantly humilate yourself on this
newsgroup and seem to take a bizarre pleasure in doing so.
Rynne McCoy
Brian E. Clark (br...@real.address.in.sig) wrote:
: rha...@cybercomm.net says...
: > Among these are: spilling a hot beverage in our laps, crossing
: > the street without looking both ways, etc. These I label
: > *consequential* dangers, and if I warn you of these but you choose to
: > ignore my warning and are, consequently, injured, I haven't punished
: > you; you yourself have brought this "punishment" upon yourself through
: > your own relevant action/inaction.
: Agreed, because the existence of the danger is outside your control.
: -- that's not your fault, and you cannot make it such that hot water
: doesn't burn.
: > It's the same way with God.
:
: Uh, no it's not -- not at all. What could make you make so foolish a
: In the case of God, the dangers which beset us exist because God put
: them there. God could remove the dangers at any point. God arranged
: the universe such that hot water would burn you. He did it
: deliberately. He *wanted* hot water to burn you. From God's
: perspective, by no means was hot water obliged to cause burns. God
: *chose* that quality.
Thank you, thank you, THANK you Brian! You have managed to say in this
and the next two paragraphs so succinctly what I have been trying to say
for so long! (And so much better than I have been able to!) This is an
EXCELLENT and WELL THOUGHT OUT argument for this point. Any Xtians
reading this, please, PLEASE take heed. If you can understand the point
this guy is making, you will gain something of great importance that will
help you to understand the problems & flaws many, many, MANY atheists as
well as agnostics, mystics, pagans, and other non-christians see in your
system!
: Now, some may ask whether God wasn't using the avoidance of hot water
: as a means of demonstrating the importance of heeding good godly
: advice. But that's just chasing the point. One needs such advice only
: to avoid mishaps, and the mishaps exist only because God created them.
: It makes no sense to ask, "What would we learn without the mishaps?"
: because such learning has value only if there *are* mishaps.
:
: > He tells us what kinds of things are beneficial and detrimental
:
: Things are detrimental only because God made them that way. The wages
: of sin is death only because God decided that sinning would lead to
: death. It didn't have to be that way. Thorns hurt because God purposed
: that they do; thorns could have tickled. Some mushrooms are poisonous;
: all mushrooms, indeed all plants, could have been edible. Sure,
: because of the existence of nasty plant life, we've learned to check
: for prickly vines and toxic fruits. But the point is, we wouldn't NEED
: to do so if there were no thorns or deadly plants. Our knowledge has
: value only inside the system that requires it.
Once again, thanks Brian for that very well worded and well thought out
way of making The Point! From "God"'s perspective, not limited or
contained within cause-and-effect reality as we experience, there is a
limitless number of options for setting the parameters. For example, if
God had chosen to make people's bodies indestructible and impervious to
pain, there would be no violence because there would be no effect from it
for the one committing it to gain pleasure from. (See, I still can't say
it as well as you did -- so I'm gonna shut up now!) Good call, Brian!
BABALON 156 *** SHEDONA 435 | she...@intrepid.net
"Once upon a time there was Light in My life,
but now there's only love in the Dark ..."
.:.Richard.:.
phy...@phys.canterbury.ac.nz (Stephen Botha) wrote:
| In article <5ef4q0$7...@crow.cybercomm.net>, rha...@cybercomm.net (.:.Richard.:.) writes:
| > bil...@cs.purdue.edu (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
| >
| > | On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:10:42 GMT, rha...@cybercomm.net (.:.Richard.:.) wrote:
| > | >
| > | >I perceive God similarly. He has warned us of the coarser dangers in the Bible
| > | >and through the ministries of various "figureheads" (for lack of a better term)
| > | >of Christianity, while He continues to teach, train, correct and punish (as
| > | >appropriate to the situation) us in our daily walk with Him.
| > | >
| > | >Its how every concerned, loving parent relates to their children....
| >
| > | If a parent were to punish their child by roasting them in the oven, that
| > | 'loving' parent would appropriately be locked away.
| >
| > Agreed. But God is not roasting people in the oven, he's warning them that the
| > oven exists and is fatally hot, as well as telling them how *not* to get burned!
| >
| > Some kids just never listen until *after* they get burned....
| >
| yeah, but he's the one who could put out the fire, but dosen't... I wonder
| why!! If your kid fell into an oven Richard after you warned him about the
| danger, would you leave him there as a punishment, or turn down the heat???
|
| Your religion is insane. Anyone who could worship your god is a loon.
Stephen, hell was made for the devil and the fallen angels who follow him. It
is a place of eternal banishment from God's presence. Man only became eligible
to enter hell after he followed the advice of the one (Satan) who had already
been condemned to hell.
Jail was made for criminals. It is a place where damaging attitudes and their
corresponding actions may be isolated from negatively impacting a hypothetically
ordered society. If my kid went to jail after I warned him about willfully
engaging in any activity whose consequences included trial and conviction for
breaking the law, then yes, I would leave him/her there as the court had justly
imposed a sentence.
You rhetorically assert "If [my] kid fell....", where "fell" implies an
unintentional or careless action, whereas the choice to refuse God's salvation
isn't unintentional, but quite intentional; the intention is important to the
analogy's relevance. God doesn't send people to hell because they don't know,
but because they do know and refuse Him anyway.
People who intentionally choose to disbelieve in God aren't doing so by
accident, and that intentional rejection is what makes the difference between
"falling" into an oven and jumping in.
.:.Richard.:.
br...@real.address.in.sig (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
| rha...@cybercomm.net says...
| > Naturally speaking, there are many everyday activities which
| > are potentially dangerous to us.
| Yes, there exist, external to us and outside our ability to eliminate,
| dangers we must avoid.
| > Among these are: spilling a hot beverage in our laps, crossing
| > the street without looking both ways, etc. These I label
| > *consequential* dangers, and if I warn you of these but you choose to
| > ignore my warning and are, consequently, injured, I haven't punished
| > you; you yourself have brought this "punishment" upon yourself through
| > your own relevant action/inaction.
| Agreed, because the existence of the danger is outside your control.
| You neither created the peril, nor can you remove it. Hot water scalds
| -- that's not your fault, and you cannot make it such that hot water
| doesn't burn.
| > It's the same way with God.
| Uh, no it's not -- not at all. What could make you make so foolish a
| comparison? God does not live an a universe of external consequences.
| In the case of God, the dangers which beset us exist because God put
| them there. God could remove the dangers at any point. God arranged
| the universe such that hot water would burn you. He did it
| deliberately. He *wanted* hot water to burn you. From God's
| perspective, by no means was hot water obliged to cause burns. God
| *chose* that quality.
First of all, in the context of our discussion, hot water is a man-made entity.
Secondly, the fact that our skin is damaged by excessive heat doesn't imply that
God *wanted* hot water to burn you. It just doesn't follow. If I make
birdhouses and I make chainsaws, the fact that the chainsaw *can* destroy the
birdhouse says nothing of my *desire* for the chainsaw to destroy the birdhouse.
| Now, some may ask whether God wasn't using the avoidance of hot water
| as a means of demonstrating the importance of heeding good godly
| advice. But that's just chasing the point. One needs such advice only
| to avoid mishaps, and the mishaps exist only because God created them.
| It makes no sense to ask, "What would we learn without the mishaps?"
| because such learning has value only if there *are* mishaps.
In our home, there are potential dangers which our children do not recognize:
electrical outlets, heavy pots and pans, falling on a doll while running around
the house, etc. Some of these dangers are only dangerous to immature and/or
ignorant intellects. Our children require our protection and training as they
grow, and are expected to take on some of the responsibility for recognizing and
avoiding these dangers as they mature and learn. They need our advice, and need
to heed our advice, to avoid mishaps which are naturally associated with
existance as human beings, not to avoid obstacles which we first place there.
This concept is closely related to the "God *wanting*...." discussion above, so
I won't repeat myself here.
| > He tells us what kinds of things are beneficial and
| > detrimental to our life experience both in the Bible and
| > by the guidance of His Spirit.
| Things are detrimental only because God made them that way. The wages
| of sin is death only because God decided that sinning would lead to
| death. It didn't have to be that way. Thorns hurt because God purposed
| that they do; thorns could have tickled. Some mushrooms are poisonous;
| all mushrooms, indeed all plants, could have been edible. Sure,
| because of the existence of nasty plant life, we've learned to check
| for prickly vines and toxic fruits. But the point is, we wouldn't NEED
| to do so if there were no thorns or deadly plants. Our knowledge has
| value only inside the system that requires it.
The wages of sin is death only because the *source* of our *life* is God, and
sin interferes with our relationship to Him, hence, interferes with the conduit
through which life is imparted to us.
Thorns didn't exist before man sinned, mushrooms weren't poisonous before man
sinned. These consequences occurred because man's authority in the earth was
transferred to Satan in the Eden rebellion, and Satan has been ruining things
ever since.
You again allude to God's *intention* that certain things injure us, which I
believe I've demonstrated doesn't follow from his creating those things (see
birdhouses & chainsaws above).
John McCoy
: [snip]
: >Thanks. It's been interesting watching Richard self-destruct so quickly. This is
: >the kind of comment that Christians can't really answer. All they can do is
: >quote pointlessly (since their quotes mean nothing to atheists) from their
: >bible.
: >Michelle MAlkin
: Nice observation, Michelle. Note how John McCoy (in his posting
: below) again quotes scripture. When will they realize that they might
: as well quote Alice in Wonderland for all the difference it makes?
Alice in Wonderland wasn't meant to be taken seriously. The Bible
contains lands, peoples, genealogies, and other things that are
historically accurate. You won't find that in A in W. Also, A in W
doesn't take life seriously. It has no moral guidance.
.
: Slim
: False return address. Real one is ssim...@cnwl.igs.net
: How ceaselessly Grendel harassed......Beowulf
:
John McCoy
Stix (st...@oz-email.com.au) wrote:
: J<censored>y posted the following to alt.atheism,
: >Michelle, God is not a sadist. We are. One atheist told me that if Christ
: >did return he would not go along with him and rather suffer the
: >consequences. That is sadism Michelle.
: No it's not you dopey fuck. It's *masochism.*
: <snip god babble>
: >People would rather have herpes, AIDs,syphillis, abortions,lie and curse
: >than to receive eternal life. I call that sadism, Michelle.
: Well you're an idiot, but then again everyone already knew that.
: Try checking your dictionary before opening your stupid yap.
: Sadism: (n) the gaining of pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, from
: infliction of suffering on another person.
Not necessarily. You didn't read where it says the getting of pleasure
from inflicting physical or psychological pain on another or others. And
isn't that what you like to do Stix? You like to curse so that you can
derive pleasure in seeing people suffer from it. But, it don't work.
: Masochism: (n) 1) a condition in which pleasure, especially sexual
: pleasure, is derived from pain or being humiliated. 2) A tendency to take
: pleasure from one's own suffering.
: YOU, J<censored>y are a masochist. You constantly humilate yourself on this
: newsgroup and seem to take a bizarre pleasure in doing so.
Stix, what comes around goes around. Watch out.
: Stix
stufnten
> : Nice observation, Michelle. Note how John McCoy (in his posting
> : below) again quotes scripture. When will they realize that they might
> : as well quote Alice in Wonderland for all the difference it makes?
>
> Alice in Wonderland wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
Yes it was. Blasphemer!
> The Bible
> contains lands, peoples, genealogies, and other things that are
> historically accurate. You won't find that in A in W.
Of course not. AnW (heh) is craftily laid out in a strictly metaphorical
format, and is all the more significant for it. Not only is it a Holy Book
of Teachings, it is a great literary work.
> Also, A in W
> doesn't take life seriously.
Yes it does. You haven't read it, have you? Do not presume to Understand
Lewis Carroll, our Writer who art in Library, when you have not read His
Words!!!!!
> It has no moral guidance.
Oh?
"One can't believe in impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was
your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why sometimes I've
believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
This passage is clearly telling we faithful not to lose faith in the human
spirit, urging us to overcome the obstacles set before us by the world and
the infidels who would defy the wisdom of Carroll. Indeed, without these
words, we may have never entered the computer age or made it into space.
stufnten[tm], Toby
***
reason is, and ought to be, the servant of the passions -Hume
http://members.tripod.com/~Tesseract
Psycho Dave
> : Nice observation, Michelle. Note how John McCoy (in his posting
> : below) again quotes scripture. When will they realize that they might
> : as well quote Alice in Wonderland for all the difference it makes?
>
> Alice in Wonderland wasn't meant to be taken seriously. The Bible
> contains lands, peoples, genealogies, and other things that are
> historically accurate. You won't find that in A in W. Also, A in W
> doesn't take life seriously. It has no moral guidance.
The Bible also says that 1-1/2 days = 3 days and 3 nights. Read what
Jesus told his disciples before being crucified. He claimed he would be
dead for 3 days and 3 nights. He was killed late friday night, spent all
day Saturday dead, then supposedly rose at sunrise on Sunday. That's
only 1 day and 2 nights at best no matter how you slice it.
--
|________ ___ __ ___ | Email: psy...@flash.net |
| /___/ /__ \ / / /__/ / / | |
| / ___/ \/ /__ / / /__/ | Visit Psycho Dave's Dark |
| /_____________/___D__A__V__E__ | And Scary Place |
| http://www.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/ |
KAUTZ RICHARD W
In article <330C35...@flash.net>, Psycho Dave <psy...@flash.net> wrote:
>The Bible also says that 1-1/2 days = 3 days and 3 nights. Read what
>Jesus told his disciples before being crucified. He claimed he would be
>dead for 3 days and 3 nights. He was killed late friday night, spent all
>day Saturday dead, then supposedly rose at sunrise on Sunday. That's
>only 1 day and 2 nights at best no matter how you slice it.
There's only one explanation: Jesus must have been a travel agent. I
should write a theology thesis.
===========================================================================
Richard Kautz ric...@comm.utoronto.ca
Dept. of Electrical Engineering, University of Toronto
10 King's College Rd, Toronto, ON M5S 1A4 Canada
===========================================================================
Kenneth Fair
[sci.skeptic deleted yet again.]
In article <5ec6c1$c...@crow.cybercomm.net>, rha...@cybercomm.net
(.:.Richard.:.) wrote:
>Naturally speaking, there are many everyday activities which are
>potentially dangerous to us. Among these are: spilling a hot beverage in
>our laps, crossing the street without looking both ways, etc. These I
>label *consequential* dangers, and if I warn you of these but you choose to
>ignore my warning and are, consequently, injured, I haven't punished you;
>you yourself have brought this "punishment" upon yourself through your own
>relevant action/inaction.
>
>It's the same way with God. He tells us what kinds of things are
>beneficial and detrimental to our life experience both in the Bible and by
>the guidance of His Spirit. To the extent that I yield to His
>declarations, I am *rewarded* with safety, insight, hope, etc. Conversely,
>to the extent that I ignore Him, I am *punished* with danger,
>disappointment, fear, etc.
[snip]
Except we seem to have pretty good evidence that this is not the case.
There are plenty of pious people who have suffered horrible trials, and
wicked ones who lived long and prospered. The only way this can be
true is in some afterlife/final judgment sense of reward and punishment.
Personally, I find a moral system based solely on reward/punishment
motives (do good or God will smite you) somewhat repugnant.
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship, a
self-perpetuating autocracy..." - Dennis
Kenneth Fair
In article <5eef20$c...@whitecliff.sierra.net>, mc...@sierra.net (John
McCoy) wrote:
>Michelle, God is not a sadist. We are. One atheist told me that if Christ
>did return he would not go along with him and rather suffer the
>consequences. That is sadism Michelle. Read Revelations 21:4. It says:
>"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;and there shall be no
>more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more
>pain: for the former things are passed away."
>
>People would rather have herpes, AIDs,syphillis, abortions,lie and curse
>than to receive eternal life. I call that sadism, Michelle.
An amazing list of, ahem, social diseases, O Nameless One. Were these
the first diseases to come to mind?
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"Any smoothly functioning technology will be
indistinguishable from a rigged demo." Isaac Asimov
Kenneth Fair
In article <5eg4jo$d...@crow.cybercomm.net>, rha...@cybercomm.net
(.:.Richard.:.) wrote:
>phy...@phys.canterbury.ac.nz (Stephen Botha) wrote:
>| yeah, but he's the one who could put out the fire, but dosen't... I wonder
>| why!! If your kid fell into an oven Richard after you warned him about the
>| danger, would you leave him there as a punishment, or turn down the heat???
>|
>| Your religion is insane. Anyone who could worship your god is a loon.
>
>Stephen, hell was made for the devil and the fallen angels who follow him. It
>is a place of eternal banishment from God's presence. Man only became eligible
>to enter hell after he followed the advice of the one (Satan) who had already
>been condemned to hell.
[snip]
Yes, but you've just pushed the goalposts farther back. You haven't
addressed the underlying problem. Why have Satan and the fallen angels?
Did not God create them as well? If so, why? Either God is not
omnipotent, or not omniscient, or wanted to create evil.
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information
is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS." - Bob McElwaine
Damian Hammontree
in <5eg6sk$g...@crow.cybercomm.net>, .:.Richard.:. (rha...@cybercomm.net) writes:
>br...@real.address.in.sig (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
>| In the case of God, the dangers which beset us exist because God put
>| them there. God could remove the dangers at any point. God arranged
>| the universe such that hot water would burn you. He did it
>| deliberately. He *wanted* hot water to burn you. From God's
>| perspective, by no means was hot water obliged to cause burns. God
>| *chose* that quality.
>First of all, in the context of our discussion, hot water is a man-made entity.
>Secondly, the fact that our skin is damaged by excessive heat doesn't imply that
>God *wanted* hot water to burn you. It just doesn't follow. If I make
>birdhouses and I make chainsaws, the fact that the chainsaw *can* destroy the
>birdhouse says nothing of my *desire* for the chainsaw to destroy the birdhouse.
Richard, you are (yet again) trying to convince people that god isn't
the creator of all things. _Of course_ hot water is made by god - water
was created by god, heat was created by god, and the fact that water
can absorb heat is a functioning of the universe set up by god. Why do
you not understand this?
If you _created_ birdhouses and chainsaws (rather than just make them),
then you would have to have created them each with their respective
properties such that chainsaws could destroy birdhouses. If you are the
ultimate designer of everything, then you would have to want them to be
this way. Why do you not understand this?
Your analogies (and I'll say this again) fail specifically because
you're comparing yourself to god - you aren't all powerful! Every
analogy I've seen from you breaks down because of this simple point.
"If I did X..." holds _no_ water as an analogy to god unless you say
"If I did X _and_ I was all-powerful ..." It is the precise point that
people have been trying to make to you, and it is precisely why your
analogies do not work!
IG (Slim) Simpson
mc...@sierra.net (John McCoy) wrote:
>IG (Slim) Simpson (g...@big.sky.net) wrote:
>: Nice observation, Michelle. Note how John McCoy (in his posting
>: below) again quotes scripture. When will they realize that they might
>: as well quote Alice in Wonderland for all the difference it makes?
>Alice in Wonderland wasn't meant to be taken seriously. The Bible
>contains lands, peoples, genealogies, and other things that are
>historically accurate. You won't find that in A in W. Also, A in W
>doesn't take life seriously. It has no moral guidance.
>:
Gee, you've just destoyed my faith in A in W. Where, oh, where will I
find a replacement??
A Worried Slim
Nicolas Demers
Landis D. Ragon wrote:
> >>Michelle MAlkin
> > Nice observation, Michelle. Note how John McCoy (in his posting
> >below) again quotes scripture. When will they realize that they might
> >as well quote Alice in Wonderland for all the difference it makes?
> >
> >
>
>
> 'Twas Brillig and the Slithy Toves
> Did gyre and gymbal in the wabe.
> All mimsy were the borogroves and
> the Monraths outgrape.
>
Looking-Glass."
> Rule 42: All persons over a mile high are to leave the court!
>
> Actually, that makes *MUCH* more sense than the Babble-ing of the
> xtian invaders.
>
> (Lewis Carole is much more fun to read than the Babble, too!)
Amen! (so to speak)
--
Nicolas P. Demers n...@cs.sfu.ca
** ** **
"The only maps that take you places are the ones you draw yourself."
** ** **
"A cat is a good thing to be."
Brian E. Clark
mc...@sierra.net says...
> People would rather have herpes, AIDs,syphillis, abortions,lie
> and curse than to receive eternal life.
Tell me, John. When someone converts, does he become a remorseless
liar like you? Is shameless distortion a gift of the Spirit?
-brian
MPurcell
Why is it that atheists spend any time at all conversing about something
or someone they claim doesn't even exist...8th wonder of the world I
guess.
Judy
Brian E. Clark
rha...@cybercomm.net says...
> People who intentionally choose to disbelieve in God aren't
> doing so by accident, and that intentional rejection is what
> makes the difference between "falling" into an oven and jumping
> in.
Outside the half-truths that flow from too many pulpits, the idea that
a person disbelieves in something by choice is granted little respect,
and for good reason.
First of all, it's obvious that "People who INTENTIONALLY choose to
disbelieve...aren't doing so by accident." That's no surprise!
Intentional acts cannot be called accidental. So the real question is,
can we sensibly say that people intentionally choose to disbelieve?
That's a hard charge to support. Outside faith and other forms of
question-begging (e.g., arguments from design), nothing points
definitively to the existence of God. So God could not say I *choose*
to disbelieve in him simply because my assessment of the evidence
leads me to lack belief. Likewise, I do not "choose" to believe that
my birthday is in June and not in July. It would unreasonable to
discount the recollections of my mother, my grandmother and my uncle,
not to mention the date printed on my birth certificate. I do not
"choose" to believe that February does not immediately follow
December. I do not "choose" to lack belief in gods.
Perhaps you have something else in mind? Perhaps you mean that people
really do believe God exists but choose to ignore that belief. If so,
note that it would become contradictory to talk of "choosing
disbelief," as the choice rests squarely upon belief. The nonbelievers
of the world would be, in that scheme, merely believers who lie.
But that, too, would be quite a difficult notion to support! I mean,
what would give a person such insight into the minds of all alleged
unbelievers?
Torkel Franzen
r...@axis.jeack.com.auz (Gully Foyle) writes:
>Oh you know something about AIW? It was actually quite a serious book
>at the time of its writing as it was a veiled criticism of British
>royalty and politics.
It was nothing of the kind.
Austin Cline
In article <330CDF...@concentric.net>, Pur...@concentric.net wrote:
<snip>
>Why is it that atheists spend any time at all conversing about something
>or someone they claim doesn't even exist...8th wonder of the world I
>guess.
No, it's because xians keep coming up to atheists trying to convert them -
or trying to make themselves feel better by insulting atheists. Whichever.
Austin Cline; German Department; Princeton University
--- The universe may have a purpose, but nothing we know suggests that, if so,
this purpose has any similarity to ours."
- Bertrand Russell
Dave Harnish
Just couldn't let the title of this thread go by, because it's not Christians men need
to worry about confronting. It's the LORD Jesus Christ himself, before whom we all will
soon stand, and there will be no attitude of confrontation on our part. We will all be
on our knees, recognizing that it's all true, and that He alone is worthy of worship.
And many, oh so many, will wish they had decided to believe it while they had the
chance. But when that day comes, the time for decision- making will be lost.
We will ALL confess one day that He is LORD, whether we believed it on this earth or
not. What will it be? By doing nothing we are deciding against Him. Don't wait.
Seek Him while He may still be "found".
Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Harnish <d...@epix.net> | In PA's Beautiful Endless Mtns
Dave's Repair Service | For a new life, read The Old Book.
Appliance Service You Can Trust | Isa 7:14 >>>---> Matt 1:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Delia
In <5ef6qd$9...@crow.cybercomm.net>, rha...@cybercomm.net (.:.Richard.:.) writes:
>How do you rationalize your criticism against God when it is you who has been
>given the option to choose salvation or condemnation, and you have chosen
>condemnation?
Pretty much the same way a woman rationalizes her criticism against a rapist
holding a gun to her head, who offers her a choice between remaining alive if
she agrees to have sex with him, or blowing her head off with the gun. If the
woman refuses to have sex with him, then she has chosen the condemnation!
>| God sent his son to save us, guess what from... from God's punishments!!
>
>Wrong again. God sent His son to save us from sin (singular). Sin is most
>easily apprehended
"Comprehended."
>as a "genetic" defect in your spirit, and this defect cannot
>be "fixed", it must be destroyed, hence the concept of being "born again"
>(spiritually recreated).
Begs the following questions: why is it defective, why can't it be "fixed", why
does believing in Jesus make the defect acceptable, why must it be destroyed,
why can't God "fix" it, since He is omnipotent, and why is the easiest
comprehension of a concept necessarily the correct one.
>If you don't allow God to kill off the sin-infected
>spirit and put a sin-free spirit within you, that sin-infected spirit is the one
>thing that prohibits your admission into heaven -- nothing else stands between
>you and God's favor!.
A definition of sin I've recently come across that really caught my attention is that
sin is any action in disobedience of God's commands. Breaking one or more of the
Ten Commandments would be sinning. But sins aren't necessarily morally "wrong",
while acting righteous isn't necessarily morally "right." In 1 Samuel 15, Saul was
punished after killing off all but one of the Amalekites. Saul wasn't punished for
committing the morally wrong act of genocide; he was punished for not killing
every Amalekite (even though he eventually had the Amalekite king killed
anyway). The "sin" Saul committed was not the genocide, but disobeying God's
order to kill everyone. Meanwhile, a pious man of another religion who does
good and charitable deeds on what turns out to be the Christian Sabbath commits
a sin by not honoring the Sabbath as a result of not believing in Jesus. It's a
topsy-turvy world when you sell out to Christianity (or any other restrictive
religion, for that matter.)
>It's not the things that we do that keep us from heaven, it's who we are,
>spiritually, that grants or forbids our citizenship in His kingdom. You know
>from all the postings that appear here, and likely from your interpersonal
>acquaintences with Christians, that we don't become faultless in our behavior
>just because we've allowed God to replace our tainted spirit (tho' we'd like to
>be ;)
Jeffrey Dahmer's more spiritual than I am with respect to a belief in Jesus, if
his sworn testimony is to be believed. He was a sinner, he admitted, who believed
Jesus forgave his sins. Jeffrey's dead now. Is he in heaven? How would his
victims feel if they had to spend eternity with him?
>The reality of life and living in this world (which is temporarily governed by
>the devil as a consequence of Adam's rebellion in Eden)
Get over it. Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was a fairy tale.
>is that each of us,
>Christian and non-Christian, are tempted to do wrong things, and we all
>occasionally give in to temptations. Christians ask to be forgiven and cleansed
>because of what Jesus did for us, while non-Christians voluntarily allow the
>violations to accrue, rationalizing their behavior as "normal", or comparitively
>judging the action by saying things like, "...but at least it wasn't as bad
>as....", or just by trying to do better next time.
What's wrong with trying to do better next time? What's wrong with normal
behavior, such as sexual urges or preferences expressed in a non-criminal way?
What's wrong with comparitively judging their behavior, such as comparing
the degree of certain minor, finite sins they have committed with the list of
atrocities committed by King David (who, presumably, is in heaven, even though
King David never once confessed his belief in Jesus)?
>Whatever the non-Christian response, the simple reality of the situation is that
>the sin-infected spirit remains within them, and the tally of their sins
>(plural) continues to increase;
I don't suppose it would be at all possible for you to back up this statement with
any evidence from your imagined "simple reality"?
>the Christian's reality is that he is a new
>creation by God's doing, and his daily mistakes are forgiven and cleansed by the
>blood of Jesus.
And, since you're a Christian, your "simple reality" is necessarily correct, of
course. Feh.
>This shouldn't become a crutch so that Christians can behave any way they like,
>rather, it is a means to deal with our humanity until the fulfillment of God's
>eternal plan.
It shouldn't be a platform on which Christians can stand and look down in
sanctimonious condescension on all other non-Christians, either, but it is.
>| What a guy!! When we look at the victims of the Nazis, at
>| least their suffering was not eternal. I suppose the large number of people who
>| through themselves onto the electrified fences at Auscwitz to end their
>| suffering are in hell now for committing suicide?? And how exactly does a dead
>
>I don't know where they are, and I believe anyone who declares otherwise is
>presumptuous (sp?). The situation you refer to was a horrific era in human
>history, and I'm confident that those circumstances bear strongly upon the
>victim's motives and actions, as well as the consideration of God.
Translation: "That's a good question. Are their any other questions?"
>| person without nerves feel pain? Does god arrange a new body to allow
>| the suffering? does he give us extra sensitive nerves to make it worse?
>
>AFAIK, the resurrection is universally applicable to "saint & sinner" alike.
>It's *where* we spend eternity that differs, not in what form.
Completely avoided the question again, but you weren't too successful as usual.
*Where* we spend eternity is irrelevant. *How* we are able to experience
pain and suffering (as we know it) is the question.
>| and BTW what about the christian families of atheists? how can anyone
>| be happy in heaven knowing what's going on downstairs???
>
>God promises that heaven will be a place where no pain, suffering, strife,
>sorrow, death, etc., will exist. I don't know how that relates to family
>members, but I do recall Jesus telling a group of Pharisees (in response to
>their asking Him whose wife a woman would be if she married a man, he died, his
>brother marries her to fulfill the law, then he dies, etc.) that they were in
>error because they didn't know the scriptures -- that in heaven there will be
>neither marrying nor giving to marry... so I suspect that relationships as we
>currently percieve/understand them are different there.
In order for that to occur, God must need to brainwash everyone into not
thinking about husbands and ex-husbands co-existing in heaven, or into not
thinking about loved ones suffering in hell for eternity because they didn't
accept Jesus. God need to turn all the souls in heaven into anaesthetized,
lobotomized robots - the exact same condition that many apologists say God
doesn't want here on earth, in order to justify free will.
>| Your religion iseems pretty rotten to me.
>
>It appears to me that you know very little about my religion, and what you claim
>to know is the traditional propagation of the misunderstandings and prejudices
>of those who've come before you.
What you've failed to clear up is exactly those alleged "misunderstandings and
prejudices" that you claim we're suffering under. I'm sorry, but I am certainly
prejudiced against mass murderers and genocidal maniacs, especially when they
have written confessions of their crimes. And perhaps it's a misunderstanding,
but I condemn murder of innocents and genocide as being less desirable than you
do.
Wayne Delia, red...@ibm.net
"I am evil Ho-mer! I am evil Ho-mer!" - Evil Homer Simpson,
dancing on the grave of Good Homer Simpson
Wayne Delia
In <5eg4jo$d...@crow.cybercomm.net>, rha...@cybercomm.net (.:.Richard.:.) writes:
>Stephen, hell was made for the devil and the fallen angels who follow him. It
>is a place of eternal banishment from God's presence. Man only became eligible
>to enter hell after he followed the advice of the one (Satan) who had already
>been condemned to hell.
Based on the descriptions of God's actions in the Old Testament, I want to fill out
an application so that I can spend eternity as far away from God as I can be.
>Jail was made for criminals. It is a place where damaging attitudes and their
>corresponding actions may be isolated from negatively impacting a hypothetically
>ordered society. If my kid went to jail after I warned him about willfully
>engaging in any activity whose consequences included trial and conviction for
>breaking the law, then yes, I would leave him/her there as the court had justly
>imposed a sentence.
While that would be difficult for you to do as a parent, that's actually the easy
way. Suppose your kid went to jail for not accepting the authority of the judge,
after having committed no crime. Suppose further that the judge acquitted others
who committed crimes, if they only showed appropriate respect and proper
acknowledgement of his judicial authority, coupled with a contrite expression of
guilt. They go free, and your kid is in jail for 25-years-to-life. Would you then
leave him/her there as the court had justly imposed a sentence? If not, then
that's your option, but you are even less persuasive than usual. If so, however,
then perhaps you can understand why we find similar arguments against the
absolute jurisdiction of God unimpressive.
>You rhetorically assert "If [my] kid fell....", where "fell" implies an
>unintentional or careless action,
An unintentional or careless action that you warned the kid would happen, and
which you had the ability to control - presuming it was the "fell into a hot oven"
example.
>whereas the choice to refuse God's salvation
>isn't unintentional, but quite intentional; the intention is important to the
>analogy's relevance. God doesn't send people to hell because they don't know,
>but because they do know and refuse Him anyway.
So, Jesus saying "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one gets to the Father
but by me" and all of Paul's preaching of salvation by faith in Jesus, are all lies?
Salvation is available to all who hear and accept the preaching, as well as to all
those who do not hear any of the preaching, regardless of what sins they commit?
What are we to make of the similar claims of other religions, such as Islam, which
militantly teaches that belief that Jesus is divine is blasphemy, and there is no
god but Allah? And all Christians will end up in the Moslem equivalent of hell,
simply because they are Christians? Here's a quote from Imram 3:83... "He that
chooses a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the
world to come he shall surely be among the losers." By what judgement criteria
do you reject that warning you've been given? Simply because it doesn't sound
as threatening as the warning from your God?
>People who intentionally choose to disbelieve in God aren't doing so by
>accident, and that intentional rejection is what makes the difference between
>"falling" into an oven and jumping in.
I'm sure you think you are making a clear analogy, but you're not doing so at all.
There are physical characteristics about hot ovens that we can observe and base
rational judgements upon, such as the apparent temperature of the burners, and
what we know happens to skin when it comes in contact with the burners. We
can make no such objective judgement in matters about God. In fact, the "choice"
to disbelieve in God is similar to a "choice" to disbelieve that 2 + 2 = 5 in base-10
arithmetic, despite fervent pleas for belief that 2 + 2 = 5 through faith, which for
some reason is a good thing (that reason is unknowable unless one has faith, by
the way). It's impossible to tell that belief system apart from an elaborate con
job.
Brandon M. Gorte
: >: below) again quotes scripture. When will they realize that they might
: >: as well quote Alice in Wonderland for all the difference it makes?
: >Alice in Wonderland wasn't meant to be taken seriously. The Bible
: >historically accurate. You won't find that in A in W. Also, A in W
: >doesn't take life seriously. It has no moral guidance.
: >:
: Gee, you've just destoyed my faith in A in W. Where, oh, where will I
: find a replacement??
Beowulf? (It's in your sig, and it is a very good saga.)
Brandon Gorte
Firstname Lastname
In article <3308d34a...@news.insync.net>, firew...@insync.net (erikc) says:
>
>On 17 Feb 1997 14:46:12 GMT
>"Marjan P." <pre...@usa.net>
>as message <01bc1ce1$7e7ef4c0$c22002c1@marjan>
>-- posted from: alt.atheism:
>>|Richard Hood <ri...@cland.net> wrote in article
>>|<330868...@cland.net>...
>>|> "Your sin only accumulates if you don't ask forgiveness." My God is a
>>|God of Compassion
>>|> and forgiveness."
>>|
>>|As I know Christians believe there is hell and there is heaven. If you
>>|sin you go to hell, if you do not or you confess you go to heaven.
>>|Because there are no levels of heaven and hell it does not really
>>|matters if you sin a little or a lot. Very educative.
>
>And if you do not believe these things, it scares the bejeezuz out of the xians
>because they have no emotional and psychological sway over you. That's when
>the ostracism, insults, discrimination, and in some cases, violence begins. It
>simply ruins a fundy's day when somebody is able to live thier lives without
>having to constantly look over thier shoulder wondering if the Big Bad God-
>whatziz is going to zap them for some minor transgression.
>
>
>Erikc. fire...@insync.net
>
>
>Creationist: an ape-descended bible college graduate
>whose commencement exercises consist of demonstrating
>that he can walk without scraping his knuckles on the
>floor.
If the Bible is to be interpreted literally, only God has the right and
the power to hold an "emotional and psychological sway over you", but
he doesn't. You are free to reject His offer and continue down the path
*you* choose.
>/* Here's an example of thier moral degeneracy */
>http://www.christiangallery.com/ (home page)
>http://www.christiangallery.com/sick1.html#bugger
I think I hear the pot calling the kettle black
Michelle Malkin
In <5ei7g8$bjo$2...@nntp.igs.net> g...@big.sky.net (IG (Slim) Simpson)
writes:
>mc...@sierra.net (John McCoy) wrote:
>
>>IG (Slim) Simpson (g...@big.sky.net) wrote:
>>: Nice observation, Michelle. Note how John McCoy (in his posting
>>: below) again quotes scripture. When will they realize that they
might
>>: as well quote Alice in Wonderland for all the difference it makes?
>
>>Alice in Wonderland wasn't meant to be taken seriously. The Bible
>>contains lands, peoples, genealogies, and other things that are
>>historically accurate. You won't find that in A in W. Also, A in W
>>doesn't take life seriously. It has no moral guidance.
>>:
>Gee, you've just destoyed my faith in A in W. Where, oh, where will I
>find a replacement??
>
>
>
> False return address. Real one is ssim...@cnwl.igs.net
>
> How ceaselessly Grendel harassed......Beowulf
>
>
historical parts of the bible may be, but it certainly makes a lot more
sense! I'd rather watch a mome rath outgrab (present tense) any day
over having to read anymore of the fantics quoting mythology and its
modern brainwashing uses.
Mickey
Michelle Malkin
>
>Nicolas Demers wrote:
>>
>> Landis D. Ragon wrote:
>> > >>Michelle MAlkin
>> > > Nice observation, Michelle. Note how John McCoy (in his posting
>> > >below) again quotes scripture. When will they realize that they
might
>> > >as well quote Alice in Wonderland for all the difference it
makes?
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > Hummmm, let's see.
>> >
>> > 'Twas Brillig and the Slithy Toves
>> > Did gyre and gymbal in the wabe.
>> > All mimsy were the borogroves and
>> > the Monraths outgrape.
>> >
>> Not to be picky or anything... But that's from "Through The
>> Looking-Glass."
>>
>> > Rule 42: All persons over a mile high are to leave the court!
>> >
>> > Actually, that makes *MUCH* more sense than the Babble-ing of the
>> > xtian invaders.
>> >
>> > (Lewis Carole is much more fun to read than the Babble, too!)
>>
>> Amen! (so to speak)
>> --
>> Nicolas P. Demers n...@cs.sfu.ca
>> ** ** **
>> "The only maps that take you places are the ones you draw yourself."
>> ** ** **
>> "A cat is a good thing to be."
Close, Nicolas, but it's "mome raths", "borogoves" and 'outgrabe".
Aside from that, I sure as hell agree with you!
Michelle Malkin
Stix
J<censored>y posted the following to alt.atheism,
>Stix (st...@oz-email.com.au) wrote:
>: J<censored>y posted the following to alt.atheism,
>
>: >Michelle, God is not a sadist. We are. One atheist told me that if Christ
>: >did return he would not go along with him and rather suffer the
>: >consequences. That is sadism Michelle.
>
>: No it's not you dopey fuck. It's *masochism.*
>
>: <snip god babble>
>
>: >People would rather have herpes, AIDs,syphillis, abortions,lie and curse
>: >than to receive eternal life. I call that sadism, Michelle.
>
>: Well you're an idiot, but then again everyone already knew that.
>
>: Try checking your dictionary before opening your stupid yap.
>
>: Sadism: (n) the gaining of pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, from
>: infliction of suffering on another person.
>
>Not necessarily. You didn't read where it says the getting of pleasure
>from inflicting physical or psychological pain on another or others.
Inflicting physical or psychological pain on others is still the infliction
of suffering, moron. Anyway, what's that got to do with your error in
referring to masochism as sadism?
Not man enough to admit when you're wrong, J<censored>n?
> And isn't that what you like to do Stix? You like to curse so that you can
>derive pleasure in seeing people suffer from it.
Irrelevant to the point at hand.
> But, it don't work.
Seems to work fine on you, J<censored>n.
>: Masochism: (n) 1) a condition in which pleasure, especially sexual
>: pleasure, is derived from pain or being humiliated. 2) A tendency to take
>: pleasure from one's own suffering.
>
>: YOU, J<censored>y are a masochist. You constantly humilate yourself on this
>: newsgroup and seem to take a bizarre pleasure in doing so.
>
>Stix, what comes around goes around.
Yep, and you're getting what comes around. Maybe if you thought for a
moment before blabbering garbage you wouldn't have your faced rubbed in
your stupidity so often.
>Watch out.
A threat, J<censored>n? Whom should I watch out for? The "D3" or whatever
secret organization you told Garrison you work for?
Heh heh, yeah right, J<censored>n, give it your best shot; I'm all ears...
Landis D. Ragon
Nicolas Demers <n...@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:
>Landis D. Ragon wrote:
>> >>Michelle MAlkin
>> > Nice observation, Michelle. Note how John McCoy (in his posting
>> >below) again quotes scripture. When will they realize that they might
>> >as well quote Alice in Wonderland for all the difference it makes?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Hummmm, let's see.
>>
>> 'Twas Brillig and the Slithy Toves
>> Did gyre and gymbal in the wabe.
>> All mimsy were the borogroves and
>> the Monraths outgrape.
>>
>Not to be picky or anything... But that's from "Through The
>Looking-Glass."
>
>> Rule 42: All persons over a mile high are to leave the court!
>>
>> Actually, that makes *MUCH* more sense than the Babble-ing of the
>> xtian invaders.
>>
>> (Lewis Carole is much more fun to read than the Babble, too!)
>
>Amen! (so to speak)
>--
>Nicolas P. Demers n...@cs.sfu.ca
>** ** **
>"The only maps that take you places are the ones you draw yourself."
>** ** **
>"A cat is a good thing to be."
Oh, yea...
Oh well. I have so many bits and pieces of the 2 in my head that I
can *NOT* remember which piece comes from where!
...Clean cups! Clean cups!
...Of cabbages and kings!
And why the sea is boiling hot? And whether pigs have wings?
Ronald W. Myers
<Theological Debate Snipped>
>
>Get over it. Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was a fairy tale.
Note the above statement. Nothing against Wayne, but when one debates
with non-believers, they will use their own scriptural interpretations
and THEN go back to "It's all a fairy tale". They can "have it both
ways here". They will feint with scripture and then come back on other
points by the standard "fairy tale" phrase.
The trap here, is while a believer takes the scriptures seriously, the
non-believers do not. It makes for a delicious trap does it not?
Suggestion? If a person asks you a question, discern if it is a
sincere question. Hint: It will not be done on a public athiest
forum. Peer pressure and unpleasantness will prevent that from
happening. Besides, common sense dictates that atheist threads are
really *for* atheists.
-Ron
***********************************************************************
<snip>
>What you've failed to clear up is exactly those alleged
>"misunderstandings and prejudices" that you claim we're suffering
>under. I'm sorry, but I am certainly prejudiced against mass murderers
>and genocidal maniacs, especially when they have written confessions
>of their crimes. And perhaps it's a misunderstanding,
>but I condemn murder of innocents and genocide as being less desirable
>than you do.
***********************************************************************
Now here is a common tactic. Demonize your opponent. Let's see here,
genocidal maniacs, mass murderers, crimes. Words like this are
repeated over and over again. Of course this is prejudice. The
implication here is the universal statement "All Christians are all of
these bad things".
The logic here is something like: John is an Estonian. John murdered
somebody. Therefore all Estonians are murderers. This smoke screen is
common with all sorts of debates. When the name-calling starts, the
discussion is over.
And when the discussion IS over, the logical thing to do is to end the
discussion. Besides, if Wayne really BELIEVES what he said, you are
most certainly not going to convince him.
You may resume your bloodletting.
Ron Myers
ronm...@ix.netcom.com
Stix
Dave Harnish posted the following to alt.atheism,
>Just couldn't let the title of this thread go by,
Bully for you, but it's a pity you didn't snip alt.atheism out of your
response - you're playing with certain people who enjoy berating idiotic
theists - especially members of the christianic death cult.
> because it's not Christians men need to worry about confronting.
Yeah it is. Christians are the idiots who bleat about this particular fairy
tale as if it's true. Oh look! Just like you've done below!
> It's the LORD Jesus Christ himself,
Who was merely a dime a dozen prophet and has been dead for millenia.
> before whom we all will soon stand,
Nope.
> and there will be no attitude of confrontation on our part.
Correct - because there will be no confrontation. It's all a silly myth.
> We will all be on our knees,
.....letting the priest fill you with his holy semen?
>recognizing that it's all true, and that He alone is worthy of worship.
Nope, it's false, and your whining Jew is *not* worthy of worship.
>And many, oh so many, will wish they had decided to believe it while they had the
>chance. But when that day comes, the time for decision- making will be lost.
Hey god-boy, shut the fuck up with the putrid damnation threats. What, you
really think you're the first fucking loser to come bleating the above
GARBAGE? Why should we believe you?
>We will ALL confess one day that He is LORD,
Nope, but I *will* confess that you're a god-soaked fool.
> whether we believed it on this earth or not.
And of course the reason to believe this BIBLE BABBLING GARBAGE is just
because you say so, right? Fuck off, dimwit.
> What will it be?
Abuse for all bleaters who spew this shit to atheists.
> By doing nothing we are deciding against Him.
Can't decide against that which does not exist.
> Don't wait.
I rarely do. I pounce on you blinded moronic bleaters as soon as I see one
of your sickening, "believe my fantasy or else" posts.
>Seek Him while He may still be "found".
Eat shit, bleater.
Stix
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Nail 'em up I say! Nail some sense into 'em!"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
.:.Richard.:.
ronm...@ix.netcom.com(Ronald W. Myers) wrote:
| <Theological Debate Snipped>
| >
| >Get over it. Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was a fairy tale.
| ***********************************************************************
| Note the above statement. Nothing against Wayne, but when one debates
| with non-believers, they will use their own scriptural interpretations
| and THEN go back to "It's all a fairy tale". They can "have it both
| ways here". They will feint with scripture and then come back on other
| points by the standard "fairy tale" phrase.
| The trap here, is while a believer takes the scriptures seriously, the
| non-believers do not. It makes for a delicious trap does it not?
| Suggestion? If a person asks you a question, discern if it is a
| sincere question. Hint: It will not be done on a public athiest
| forum. Peer pressure and unpleasantness will prevent that from
| happening. Besides, common sense dictates that atheist threads are
| really *for* atheists.
| -Ron
| ***********************************************************************
| <snip>
| >What you've failed to clear up is exactly those alleged
| >"misunderstandings and prejudices" that you claim we're suffering
| >under. I'm sorry, but I am certainly prejudiced against mass murderers
| >and genocidal maniacs, especially when they have written confessions
| >of their crimes. And perhaps it's a misunderstanding,
| >but I condemn murder of innocents and genocide as being less desirable
| >than you do.
| ***********************************************************************
| Now here is a common tactic. Demonize your opponent. Let's see here,
| genocidal maniacs, mass murderers, crimes. Words like this are
| repeated over and over again. Of course this is prejudice. The
| implication here is the universal statement "All Christians are all of
| these bad things".
| The logic here is something like: John is an Estonian. John murdered
| somebody. Therefore all Estonians are murderers. This smoke screen is
| common with all sorts of debates. When the name-calling starts, the
| discussion is over.
| And when the discussion IS over, the logical thing to do is to end the
| discussion. Besides, if Wayne really BELIEVES what he said, you are
| most certainly not going to convince him.
| You may resume your bloodletting.
| Ron Myers
| ronm...@ix.netcom.com
Interesting observations, Ron -- thanks for your insight!
______ _ _ _
(_____ \ (_) | | | |
_____) ) _ ____ | |__ _____ ____ __| |
| __ / | | / ___)| _ \ (____ | / ___) / _ |
| | \ \ | |( (___ | | | |/ ___ || | ( (_| |
|_| |_||_| \____)|_| |_|\_____||_| \____|
rha...@cybercomm.net
.:.Richard.:.
red...@ibm.net (Wayne Delia) wrote:
| In <5ec6c1$c...@crow.cybercomm.net>, rha...@cybercomm.net (.:.Richard.:.) writes:
| >malk...@mindspring.com (Michelle Malkin) wrote:
| Hey Richard, what's up? How're you doing on interpreting Isaiah 7:14-16 as a
| legitimate fulfilled prophecy of Jesus? After that, you've got 47 more to go. I
| owe you a e-mail reply on why I consider you intellectually dishonest, but since
| my son got a multimedia game, computer time at home is at a premium.
Hi Wayne. I don't perceive any problems with Isaiah's prophecy. I believe
Jesus *was* born of a virgin as v14a predicts, and as the N.T. Apostles
declared; "Immanuel" means "God with us", and I believe that's who Jesus was in
His earthly incarnation, so I percieve no difficulty there; I have no evidence
that v15 was or was not specifically fulfilled, recognizing that the gospel
accounts are not a second-by-second journal of Jesus' earthly existence (given
the plausibility of virgin birth as compared to eating curds, though, believing
in the virgin birth, which is naturally impossible, makes it real easy to extend
my confidence that He ate curds, which is naturally possible); with respect to
v16, I do not yet know the names of the two kings which Ahaz feared, so I simply
do not have enough information at this time to offer an opinion....
| >Hi Michelle. This whole punishment thing seems to me to be a misdirection.
| >Here's why:
| Mainly, it's preferable for a believer to pretend that God doesn't inflict punishment
| or condemn people.
Its not pretending either of those things -- its a recognition that since Jesus
life, death and ressurection, we live in an age of grace. There will be a
reckoning of man's response to God's message of salvation, but the reckoning is
future. God does inflict punishment, and God does condemn people; our
conclusions about the reasonableness of the circumstances in which this
punishment/condemnation occurs are where we disagree.
| >Naturally speaking, there are many everyday activities which are potentially
| >dangerous to us. Among these are: spilling a hot beverage in our laps, crossing
| >the street without looking both ways, etc. These I label *consequential*
| >dangers, and if I warn you of these but you choose to ignore my warning and are,
| >consequently, injured, I haven't punished you; you yourself have brought this
| >"punishment" upon yourself through your own relevant action/inaction.
| One characteristic of these "consequential" damages are that you have no
| control over them apart from warning others about what might happen if they
| cross the street without looking, etc. Let's see how well this characteristic
| applies to God and the afterlife.
Man created automobiles. Man must've realized that if an automobile ran into a
human being that it would injure/kill them. Therefore man must have wanted
automobiles to kill people. Warning our kids to look both ways before crossing
the street is a warning to them over something dangerous which we created just
to kill them... sorry, I'm actually satirizing the reasoning which another
poster in this topic used to assert that God put all these dangerous things
here, and therefore God must have meant for these dangerous things to injure us;
but I digress (sorry ;)....
| >It's the same way with God. He tells us what kinds of things are beneficial and
| >detrimental to our life experience both in the Bible and by the guidance of His
| >Spirit.
| Uh-oh, sounds like it doesn't apply too well. Sin is not really much more than
| disobeying God, and the Bible explicitly describes incidents such as in 1 Samuel
| 15, where God's orders are certainly not in line with "beneficial to our life
| experience."
Saul's complete obedience to God would have resulted in a state which was,
indeed, beneficial to Him. What do you know of God's efforts to correct the
Amalekites? Their response to Him? There are too many unknown variables for
you to reasonably criticize God's action -- in my opinion, you critize much of
God's O.T. behavior as a result of your irreverence for all that the term "God"
implies.
Furthermore, it seems inconceivable to you that God could possibly know more
about any one of the alleged atrocities you criticize, than you believe you
yourself know. I find it quite consistent to admit I don't understand
everything in the Bible *and* still maintain my respect for the one who declares
that His ways are higher than my ways, and His thoughts higher than my thoughts.
I am content to trust Him in spite of my limited understanding of some of His
past actions.
| >To the extent that I yield to His declarations, I am *rewarded* with
| >safety, insight, hope, etc.
| Suppose you were given similar declarations that God gave to Saul in 1 Samuel
| 15. Would you carry them out? What "safety, insight, hope, etc." would be gained
| from exterminating an entire nation because their ancestors resisted having their
| land occupied by the ancestors of your nation?
If I were as certain as I could be that it was truly God, I'd like to think I
would be faithful to Him, but I must admit that, never having taken a human life
before, I cannot say for sure how I would respond.
| >Conversely, to the extent that I ignore Him, I am
| >*punished* with danger, disappointment, fear, etc.
| In 1 Samuel 15, Saul was punished for "ignoring" God. Saul was instructed to kill
| every Amalekite (you know, man and women, infant and suckling, ox and ass,
| etc.) and Saul killed all but one person - the king of Amalek, whom he took
| hostage, and eventually killed anyway - and found himself demoted, disgraced,
| sackcloth, ashes on head, and so forth. Anyway, if God communicated to you an
| order to wipe out an entire nation of mostly innocent people, assuming you had
| the means to do so, what "danger, disappointment, fear, etc." would you incur
| if you refused to kill anyone?
Some relevant questions: *Why* did Saul keep the Amalekite king alive? The
self exalted pride of the conquest: it was customary in that culture to lead
the defeated king around the city naked to his own humiliation, and to the
praise of the conquering king. God gave Saul the victory, then Saul went and
stole the credit for the victory as if it were his own human engineering. That,
in my opinion, is why God was displeased with Sauls incomplete obedience -- not
because one was left alive, but because Saul's pride stepped over the line of
appropriateness regarding how a created man ought to relate to his Creator.
| >God isn't sadistic, He is patient.
| He certainly is. He waited about 350 years to avenge the Amalek resistance to the
| Hebrews during the Exodus, and His order to exterminate the Amalek descendents
| wasn't sadistic because... because... well, I'll let you fill in the rest of the sentence.
| Now would be a good time to say it's necessary to know the Scriptures in their
| original Hebrew, or to beg the question, or to claim it's way too involved for you
| to attempt to explain.
...because sadism isn't an attribute of godliness. I find it almost humorous
that you cannot see the fallacy of judging God as if He were a mere human,
disregarding the qualities which elevate Him beyond our ability to render just
judgement concerning His actions. I know intellectually you reject this idea,
but the reality of the situation is that *if* God *is* God, then you are utterly
incapable of rendering any accurate criticism of His actions becuase He knows
more about the situation than you do, therefore your evaluation is based upon
incomplete information, effectively invalidating your conclusions.
| >I don't ignore the disobedience of my
| >children, nor do I "slam" them at every minute (my-'noot sp?) violation of my
| >authority.
| Suppose it was less than a "minute" (which you have spelled correctly) violation.
| Suppose it was a case where your children renounced being related to you, when
| they were, oh, say, about 15 years old. Would you kill them? Would you kill their
| friends who you think influenced them to rebel against you? Would you condemn
| them to eternal torture? Or would you attempt to do something to resolve the
| problem? I'd like to think you'd take the last option, and if you do, I'd consider
| you on a higher moral standard than your God, if the Bible is to be believed.
As a human parent to a human child, no I would not kill them, etc. However, as
God to his creation, I would have perfect knowledge of the moment and might act
in ways that would, at times, be misunderstood my my creation. And I can
conceive that those ways might include killing, even though the act of killing
might be misunderstood by the creation due to the limitations of their
perceptions (their "not-god-ness"). As far as doing something about the
problem, yes, I would provide a solution, but offer it as a choice so as not to
violate their free will.
The basic difference is that I experience God and trust my Him, whereas you
intellectualize *about* God and react to Him as if He were just some theistic
philosophy instead of responding to Him as an invisible, yet perceptible,
personality which can be experienced. As long as God is just and idea, you will
continue to criticize the idea based on the limitedness of your intellect (in
comparison to omniscience -- I was not being insulting :)
| >I teach them and train them and correct them and, yes, occasionally
| >punish them. Sometimes that punishment is active (I stand them in a corner for
| >"timeout" or take away a privelage) and sometimes it is passive (I anticipate
| >the negative consequences of their actions and allow the progression to occur in
| >an environment of safety monitoring).
| Hopefully (and thankfully, I'll assume) you don't inflict eternal punishments on
| them for finite or trivial offenses.
That's correct, I do not.
| >I perceive God similarly. He has warned us of the coarser dangers in the Bible
| >and through the ministries of various "figureheads" (for lack of a better term)
| >of Christianity, while He continues to teach, train, correct and punish (as
| >appropriate to the situation) us in our daily walk with Him.
| The "coarser dangers" of the Bible are inflicted by God. The analogous dangers
| to which your children are subject to are certainly not inflicted by you. Nor can
| you control the extent to which your children are exposed to the dangers they
| come in contact with, but presumably God can. You don't put one child in favor
| over the others and take that one child's side in all fights or arguments among
| your children, as God has done with the Hebrews against the rest of the world.
And His omniscience qualifies Him to do things that I don't always understand
yet still be God, hence, still be right. If God could ever be wrong, He would
cease to be God. Based on that proposition, I believe God is always right, even
when I don't understand Him. This I accept by faith. I cannot pretend to
understand everything, but I can conceive how some of the things you criticize
could be justifiable in the light of omniscience; apparently you cannot.
| >Its how every concerned, loving parent relates to their children....
| ..as long as you're willing to overlook mass murder as a child-raising technique.
Again, you're assuming that God could never have a just reason for ordering a
national extinction because all of your rationale is humanistically and
naturally constrained. I don't advocate killing off nations, because I cannot
justify that action. God doesn't do that all the time, but I know that He has
ordered national extermination, and I believe He would only do so with just
cause. My natural comprehension fails to understand the justification for such
an action, but to argue with Him who knows everything, and who gave me life,
seems more incomprehensible....
Brian E. Clark
d...@epix.net said:
> Just couldn't let the title of this thread go by, because it's
> not Christians men need to worry about confronting. It's the
> LORD Jesus Christ himself, before whom we all will soon stand,
No, we will soon grant the wisdom of a noisy little chicken.
> and there will be no attitude of confrontation on our part.
> We will all be on our knees, recognizing that it's all true,
> and that He alone is worthy of worship.
Take heed! Soon the sky will fall, and we shall all acknowledge that
Chicken Little was right!
> And many, oh so many, will wish they had decided to believe
> it while they had the chance.
Tiny blue bits of the naked sky will descend, and those caught without
umbrellas will be pelted until they are well and truly pissed.
> But when that day comes, the time for decision- making will be
> lost.
Prepare now, or we will giggle when the vault collapses and conks you
on your noggin.
> We will ALL confess one day that He is LORD, whether we believed
> it on this earth or not.
We will all have to fish the debris from our swimming pools and bird
baths and gutters, and it will make us very grumpy, as we already had
plans for the weekend.
> What will it be? By doing nothing we are deciding against Him.
What will it be? Even now I hear the first aerial cracks forming.
> Don't wait. Seek Him while He may still be "found".
K-Mart has a blue-light special on umbrellas, so buy yours today!
(I wasn't picking on you specifically, Dave. It's just that your
hackneyed altar call gets posted to the atheism newsgroups in some
form at least twice a day. After twelve billion times, what can a
person do but engage in gentle sport with it?)
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 21:11:40 -0800, Dave Harnish <d...@epix.net>
imparted this delicious tidbit of wisdom:
>Just couldn't let the title of this thread go by, because it's not Christians men need
>to worry about confronting. It's the LORD Jesus Christ himself, before whom we all will
>soon stand, and there will be no attitude of confrontation on our part. We will all be
>on our knees, recognizing that it's all true, and that He alone is worthy of worship.
Jesus came to me one evening, he dropped his long, white robe, and boy
was I on my knees! Then we smoked a cigarette while languishing in
each other's arms...and, in a little while longer, this time *he* was
on *his* knees, and *I* was the one to be worshipped! Yessirree, I am
proud to be...a horny-again Christian.
>And many, oh so many, will wish they had decided to believe it while they had the
>chance. But when that day comes, the time for decision- making will be lost.
Oh, I believe, I believe! I believe that Jesus and His Daddy are
lovers...and they love me, and they will soon set the heterosexual
world on its head, for all its perverted, fascist, blasphemous, and
oh-so-pig-ignorant homophobia.
>We will ALL confess one day that He is LORD, whether we believed it on this earth or
>not. What will it be? By doing nothing we are deciding against Him. Don't wait.
>Seek Him while He may still be "found".
Oh, Jesus is indeed my lord, why should I want another way?
When he has shown me everything, including that he's gay.
It's you who need to 'fess you crimes of false morality,
For the many times that you've condemned our sexuality.
For the angel of wrath is soon to pour
Her vessel of justice on you all...
And the waters that rise to your very eyes
Shall drown you when you fall.
For the hetero pervert that you are,
Your reward is found in hell.
And just how long before you repent,
Only time and God can tell.
Yers trooly: Jehovah's Queer Witness
To reach me, remove "_Z" from my e-mail address.
erikc
On 19 Feb 1997 08:53:20 GMT
mc...@sierra.net (John McCoy)
as message <5eef20$c...@whitecliff.sierra.net>
-- posted from: alt.atheism:
[===]
>|
>|People would rather have herpes, AIDs,syphillis, abortions,lie and curse
>|than to receive eternal life. I call that sadism, Michelle.
Compared to what you are offering, McCoy, herpes, AIDS and syphilis are
preferable indeed. Although personally, I don't want ANY of them.
Erikc. fire...@insync.net
Creationist: an ape-descended bible college graduate
whose commencement exercises consist of demonstrating
that he can walk without scraping his knuckles on the
floor.
/* Here's an example of thier moral degeneracy */
Gavin Tabor
.:.Richard.:. wrote:
>
> red...@ibm.net (Wayne Delia) wrote:
>
> | In <5ec6c1$c...@crow.cybercomm.net>, rha...@cybercomm.net (.:.Richard.:.) writes:
> | >malk...@mindspring.com (Michelle Malkin) wrote:
>
> | Hey Richard, what's up? How're you doing on interpreting Isaiah 7:14-16 as a
> | legitimate fulfilled prophecy of Jesus? After that, you've got 47 more to go. I
> | owe you a e-mail reply on why I consider you intellectually dishonest, but since
> | my son got a multimedia game, computer time at home is at a premium.
>
> Hi Wayne. I don't perceive any problems with Isaiah's prophecy. I believe
> Jesus *was* born of a virgin as v14a predicts, and as the N.T. Apostles
> declared; "Immanuel" means "God with us", and I believe that's who Jesus was in
> His earthly incarnation, so I percieve no difficulty there; I have no evidence
> that v15 was or was not specifically fulfilled, recognizing that the gospel
> accounts are not a second-by-second journal of Jesus' earthly existence (given
> the plausibility of virgin birth as compared to eating curds, though, believing
> in the virgin birth, which is naturally impossible, makes it real easy to extend
> my confidence that He ate curds, which is naturally possible); with respect to
> v16, I do not yet know the names of the two kings which Ahaz feared, so I simply
> do not have enough information at this time to offer an opinion....
>
Can I introduce you to a wonderful new development in the English
language. It's called a Full Stop. <- one of these. :-)
I've recently been reading `The Selfish Gene' by Dawkins (again). In
one chapter he claims that the virgin birth is based on a mistranslation, and
backs this up in a footnote based on extensive (and he claims, generally
accepted) biblical scholarship. Basically the word used in Isiah is the
hebrew equivalent of `young woman', or `maiden', which might mean virgin,
but doesn't have to. When this was translated into the Greek used by the
early Christians in the 1st C A.D. it was mistranslated as `virgin', and
the writers of the New Testiment rewrote their histories to make it appear
that the `prophesy' was fulfilled.
Man (or at least this one) doesn't claim to be omnipotent.
SNIP
>
> ______ _ _ _
> (_____ \ (_) | | | |
> _____) ) _ ____ | |__ _____ ____ __| |
> | __ / | | / ___)| _ \ (____ | / ___) / _ |
> | | \ \ | |( (___ | | | |/ ___ || | ( (_| |
> |_| |_||_| \____)|_| |_|\_____||_| \____|
> rha...@cybercomm.net
--
Gavin Tabor
.:.Richard.:.
rha...@cybercomm.net (.:.Richard.:.) wrote:
| Saul's complete obedience to God would have resulted in a state which was,
| indeed, beneficial to Him.
Oops! "beneficial to Him" should've been "beneficial to him"; the object of
beneficience (is that a word ? ;) is Paul, not God -- sorry for any confusion.
IG (Slim) Simpson
Dave Harnish <d...@epix.net> wrote:
[snip]
>We will ALL confess one day that He is LORD, whether we believed it on this earth or
>not. What will it be? By doing nothing we are deciding against Him. Don't wait.
>Seek Him while He may still be "found".
Is he in Alice in Wonderland?
Raistlin Majere
Dave Harnish wrote:
>
> Just couldn't let the title of this thread go by, because it's not Christians men need
> to worry about confronting. It's the LORD Jesus Christ himself, before whom we all will
> soon stand, and there will be no attitude of confrontation on our part. We will all be
> on our knees, recognizing that it's all true, and that He alone is worthy of worship.
> chance. But when that day comes, the time for decision- making will be lost.
> not. What will it be? By doing nothing we are deciding against Him. Don't wait.
> Seek Him while He may still be "found".
So, you worship jeeeeeezus. Lesse. Something about worshipping false
gods and being damned to your hell comes to mind. I mean, you no longer
worship your god; you worship jeeeeeeeeeezus. Isn't that a tad strange.
Doesn't that worry you?
But then, what do we expect from christians?
Raist
Raistlin Majere
MPurcell wrote:
> Why is it that atheists spend any time at all conversing about something
> or someone they claim doesn't even exist...8th wonder of the world I
> guess.
>
> Judy
We wouldn't if the fucking no-load shit-for-brains theists would stay
the fuck outta alt.atheism.
Raist
Nicolas Demers
Michelle Malkin wrote:
> Fear not, Slim. Alice in Wonderland may not be real, as certain
> historical parts of the bible may be, but it certainly makes a lot more
> sense! I'd rather watch a mome rath outgrab (present tense) any day
> over having to read anymore of the fantics quoting mythology and its
> modern brainwashing uses.
Agreed! And the present tense is "outgribe". Sorry to be so picky.
Nicolas Demers
Michelle Malkin wrote:
> Close, Nicolas, but it's "mome raths", "borogoves" and 'outgrabe".
> Aside from that, I sure as hell agree with you!
Well, don't look at me. I'm not the one who quoted the poem.