LIBERTY
Libertarius
> Libertarius wrote in message <3CCB73FC.C1412578@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
> >Pastor Frank wrote:
> >>
> >> The following below
> >> is a typical example of "laissaiz faire".
> >>
> >> "First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out--because I
> >> was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak
> >> out--because I was not a communist... Then they came for the Gypsies,
> >> the Jehovah Witnesses, Homosexuals, the mentally deficient etc. and
> >> each time I did not speak out in protest, because I wasn't one of
> >> them.
> >> Finally they came for me--by then there was no one left to speak
> >> out for me." -- Pastor Martin Niemöller
> >
> >===>You obviously have no idea what "laissaiz faire" is.
> >Laissaiz faire is LIBERTY.
> >
> Unfortunately man basically is a well armed Simian who will kill his own
> species for material gain.
===>That is what YOU believe. Humans are beasts that must be
controlled by the magic of religion -- the FEAR of a supernatural judge and
EXECUTIONER.
> We all operate on 2 spiritual legs, cooperation
> and competition. From the competitive viewpoint "Liberty" means the
> *freedom to do what to whom*.
> Your "Liberty" presumes a solely cooperative populace, which
> unfortunately doesn't exist, and cannot be made to exist except through
> Christ.
===>History proves the exact opposite.
For hundreds of years "Christ" meant bloodshed,
oppression, heretic burning by Catholics and Protestants,
witch hunts, etc.
There has never been as much true LIBERTY as there is since
the founders of the American system SECULARIZED society
and made it illegal to establish an official religion!
> Recently we witnessed how a few men killing those who are different
> (a la Bosnia) can start an avalange which sweeps all before it.
===>Motivated by a BELIEF IN HEAVEN!
> Trust in
> others is a precious and delicate thing easily destroyed, hence the need for
> the overbearing force of government and its army to keep control.
===>The function of an army is NOT "to keep control".
Take a course in Pol.Sci. before you post again such nonsense.
>
> To generate cooperative man suitable for that spiritual utopia, the
> Kingdom of Heaven
===>Who needs any "spiritual utopia"???
> we need religion, which preaches, cooperation,
===>SINCE WHEN?
Adelphos
>===>Who needs any "spiritual utopia"???
>
I certainly need mine on occasion :-)
Pastor Frank
>Libertarius <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>>
>>===>Who needs any "spiritual utopia"???
>>
>I certainly need mine on occasion :-)
>
than they care for themselves, which is exactly the opposite from your
libertarianism, where everybody cares only about themselves and their
families, and minding their own business exclusively care little about
others and their welfare.
Pastor Frank
"God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him
must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth."
-- Jesus in John 4:24
Adelphos
>Adelphos wrote in message ...
>>Libertarius <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>>>
>>>===>Who needs any "spiritual utopia"???
>>>
>>I certainly need mine on occasion :-)
>>
> We all need the Kingdom of Heaven where people care more about others,
>than they care for themselves, which is exactly the opposite from your
>libertarianism, where everybody cares only about themselves and their
>families, and minding their own business exclusively care little about
>others and their welfare.
>
Usually, people who find that caring for others isn't too much of a
burden will do just that, regardless of religious affiliation.
Reject libertarianism if you will, I don't care it isn't mine. It may
serve you to at least broaden the scope of horizon, maybe add a few more
colors/filters to the spectrum.
jwk
> Adelphos wrote in message ...
> >Libertarius <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
> >>
> >>===>Who needs any "spiritual utopia"???
> >>
> >I certainly need mine on occasion :-)
> >
> We all need the Kingdom of Heaven where people care more about others,
> than they care for themselves, which is exactly the opposite from your
> libertarianism, where everybody cares only about themselves and their
> families, and minding their own business exclusively care little about
> others and their welfare.
>
> Pastor Frank
Frank? There is a difference between caring about others and sticking
your nose in where it don't belong. The latter is what I mostly get
from christians. No thanks.
jwk
Libertarius
> Adelphos wrote in message ...
> >Libertarius <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
> >>
> >>===>Who needs any "spiritual utopia"???
> >>
> >I certainly need mine on occasion :-)
> >
> We all need the Kingdom of Heaven where people care more about others,
> than they care for themselves, which is exactly the opposite from your
> libertarianism, where everybody cares only about themselves and their
> families, and minding their own business exclusively care little about
> others and their welfare.
===>What brainless sermonizing!
You have to start somewhere.
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour AS THYSELF!"
Your self-hatred and self-deprication
proves that your "love" is meaningless.
Just a bunch of WORDS and FALSEHOODS!
Take a hint from 1 John 3:18
"My little children, let us not love in word,
neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth."
Libertarius
============
Libertarius
===>That attitude is expressed, in part, by the "positive"
form of the "Golden Rule": "DO TO OTHERS what you
would want them to do to you."
That is a gross disregard for the rights and privacy of
others.
Now, "DON'T DO to others what you would NOT
want others to do to you", as expressed in most such
"rules", does make sense.
"Do unto others" is an encouragement to force upon
others what you happen to believe is good for them because
YOU like it. In the Dark Ages of Christianity it was believed
that one had to FORCE people into the "faith" and ultimately
into "heaven" -- even if one had to kill those who resisted.
Libertarius
============
Pastor Frank
>"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote:
>>Adelphos wrote in message ...
>>>Libertarius <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>===>Who needs any "spiritual utopia"???
>>>>
>>>I certainly need mine on occasion :-)
>>>
>> We all need the Kingdom of Heaven where people care more about others,
>>than they care for themselves, which is exactly the opposite from your
>>libertarianism, where everybody cares only about themselves and their
>>families, and minding their own business exclusively care little about
>>others and their welfare.
>>
>Usually, people who find that caring for others isn't too much of a
>burden will do just that, regardless of religious affiliation.
That may be true. But religion may serve to persuade those who don't
feel like caring for others, to do so regardless, simply because they know
that to be the right thing to do.
>Reject libertarianism if you will, I don't care it isn't mine. It may
>serve you to at least broaden the scope of horizon, maybe add a few more
>colors/filters to the spectrum.
>
I was talking to Libertine above, not to you.
Pastor Frank
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power
to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on
his name". --John 1:12
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are
the sons of God". --Rom. 8:14
"For you are all sons of God through faith in
Christ Jesus". --Galatians 3:26
"And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of
his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father". --Gal:4:6
"If the Son therefore shall make you free,
ye shall be free indeed." --John 8:36
Adelphos
> I was talking to Libertine above, not to you.
>
>Pastor Frank
>
Kindly snip me out of it next time and maybe I'll know who you're
talking to.
Pastor Frank
>"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:<10200869...@arakis.wincom.net>...
>> Adelphos wrote in message ...
>> >Libertarius <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>===>Who needs any "spiritual utopia"???
>> >>
>> >I certainly need mine on occasion :-)
>> >
>> We all need the Kingdom of Heaven where people care more about
others,
>> than they care for themselves, which is exactly the opposite from your
>> libertarianism, where everybody cares only about themselves and their
>> families, and minding their own business exclusively care little about
>> others and their welfare.
>
>your nose in where it don't belong. The latter is what I mostly get
>from christians. No thanks.
>
above are well worn words, also used by the Hitlers and Stalins of this
world when anyone dared to criticise their actions. Their standard answer
would always be: "It's none of your business if I decide to kill Jews,
Homosexuals, and the unborn etc., who are non-persons in the eyes of the
laws of my country".
Pastor Frank
"He who does not love does not know God; for God is love."
--1 John 4:8
"So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love,
and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him."
--1John 4:16
Wostenberg
> lib===>That attitude is expressed, in part, by the "positive"
> form of the "Golden Rule": "DO TO OTHERS what you
> would want them to do to you."
> That is a gross disregard for the rights and privacy of
> others.
Err has no rights, and truth is an obligation. So how can telling a man
the Gospel truth disregard his rights and provacy? There is no liberty
without truth.
> Now, "DON'T DO to others what you would NOT
> want others to do to you", as expressed in most such
> "rules", does make sense.
> "Do unto others" is an encouragement to force upon
> others what you happen to believe is good for them because
> YOU like it. In the Dark Ages of Christianity it was believed
> that one had to FORCE people into the "faith" and ultimately
> into "heaven" -- even if one had to kill those who resisted.
Lib, we don't believe what we do because "we like it", but because it's
true. We love the truth and will that it be recognized and excepted
everywhere.
-Alan
jwk
> jwk wrote in message ...
> >"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:<10200869...@arakis.wincom.net>...
> >> Adelphos wrote in message ...
> >> >Libertarius <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>===>Who needs any "spiritual utopia"???
> >> >>
> >> >I certainly need mine on occasion :-)
> >> >
> >> We all need the Kingdom of Heaven where people care more about
> others,
> >> than they care for themselves, which is exactly the opposite from your
> >> libertarianism, where everybody cares only about themselves and their
> >> families, and minding their own business exclusively care little about
> >> others and their welfare.
> >
> >Frank? There is a difference between caring about others and sticking
> >your nose in where it don't belong. The latter is what I mostly get
> >from christians. No thanks.
> >
> Christ tells us, not to judge people, but only actions. What you say
> above are well worn words, also used by the Hitlers and Stalins of this
> world when anyone dared to criticise their actions. Their standard answer
> would always be: "It's none of your business if I decide to kill Jews,
> Homosexuals, and the unborn etc., who are non-persons in the eyes of the
> laws of my country".
>
> Pastor Frank
Oh, so that is the excuse you christers use for peeking in people's
windows, watching their every move and generally minding other peoples
business! You're trying to prevent another Hitler or Stalin! Of
course! How stupid of me! And here I thought you were just a bunch
of nosey parkers, looking for something to gossip about. How could I
be so wrong?
jwk
Libertarius
===>You are stating it backward.
You believe it is true because you like it.
> We love the truth and will that it be recognized and excepted
> everywhere.
===>You love what you BELIEVE to be the "truth" enough to
be willing to FORCE it on everyone else if you can, or at least
to condemn everyone who does not believe it. Even if the
one considers himself a Christian, since you have your own
private, subjective definition of what a "Christian" is supposed
to be.
Libertarius
============
Pastor Frank
>jwk wrote:
>> "Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:<10200869...@arakis.wincom.net>...
>> > Adelphos wrote in message ...
>> > >Libertarius <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>===>Who needs any "spiritual utopia"???
>> > >>
>> > >I certainly need mine on occasion :-)
>> > >
>> > We all need the Kingdom of Heaven where people care more about
others,
>> > than they care for themselves, which is exactly the opposite from your
>> > libertarianism, where everybody cares only about themselves and their
>> > families, and minding their own business exclusively care little about
>> > others and their welfare.
>>
>> your nose in where it don't belong. The latter is what I mostly get
>> from christians. No thanks.
>
>form of the "Golden Rule": "DO TO OTHERS what you
>would want them to do to you."
> That is a gross disregard for the rights and privacy of
>others.
> Now, "DON'T DO to others what you would NOT
>want others to do to you", as expressed in most such
>"rules", does make sense.
> "Do unto others" is an encouragement to force upon
>others what you happen to believe is good for them because
>YOU like it. In the Dark Ages of Christianity it was believed
>that one had to FORCE people into the "faith" and ultimately
>into "heaven" -- even if one had to kill those who resisted.
>
Judaism, and as the devout Jew said: "You will never catch me being
proactive".
Jesus had the opposite view, for He regarded each one of us our
brother's keeper. We Christians tell people of perils or rewards ahead, we
advise, counsel and advertise unasked.
But a devout Hindu will not help anyone in distress, for that is regarde
d as interfering in the other person's Karma and possibly making his Karma
your own. Similarly a devout Jew will not do anything to another he would
not want others to do to him. But that might include doing anything good to
others, because it might make them feel helpless, inferior, and needy. The
latter fosters a lack of involvement, trust and co-operation, each of us
being an island unto ourselves.
Christianity is a choice of aiming to be a loving, caring person in the
image of Christ, one fit for His Kingdom of Heaven.
Adelphos
> The negative form of the Golden Rule, starting with "Don't do" is the
>Judaism, and as the devout Jew said: "You will never catch me being
>proactive".
> Jesus had the opposite view, for He regarded each one of us our
>brother's keeper. We Christians tell people of perils or rewards ahead, we
>advise, counsel and advertise unasked.
> But a devout Hindu will not help anyone in distress, for that is regarde
>d as interfering in the other person's Karma and possibly making his Karma
>your own. Similarly a devout Jew will not do anything to another he would
>not want others to do to him. But that might include doing anything good to
>others, because it might make them feel helpless, inferior, and needy. The
>latter fosters a lack of involvement, trust and co-operation, each of us
>being an island unto ourselves.
> Christianity is a choice of aiming to be a loving, caring person in the
>image of Christ, one fit for His Kingdom of Heaven.
>
Frank, a truly spiritual religion is never popular because it isn't
profitable. Your book of life is flawed, in order for you to be
convincing, you must be convinced yourself. The doctrine of forcing
your belief is a complete contradiction to what Jesus instructs. Going
out and making passive mentions, assessing the reception and proceeding
only if it's welcomed is what Jesus had in mind. Not your "beat them
into submission" attitude, which is Judaism. Atheists are more like
Christ than you because, in part, they object to the church fallacies,
just as Jesus originally objected to the same synagogue fallacies that
confuse you yet.
Libertarius
===>Sure. Even if you must do it with the sword or burning them
at stake. I am quite familiar with your kind of "doing unto others".
No doubt you also believe in "doing it to them" before they do it to you.
Typical Sheepherder philosophy. Others are just sheep and you as
"pastor" must prick, prod and goad them.
I know your kind well!
Libertarius
=============
Pastor Frank
>>
>> The negative form of the Golden Rule, starting with "Don't do" is the
>>Judaism, and as the devout Jew said: "You will never catch me being
>>proactive".
>> Jesus had the opposite view, for He regarded each one of us our
>>brother's keeper. We Christians tell people of perils or rewards ahead, we
>>advise, counsel and advertise unasked.
>> But a devout Hindu will not help anyone in distress, for that is
regarde
>>d as interfering in the other person's Karma and possibly making his Karma
>>your own. Similarly a devout Jew will not do anything to another he would
>>not want others to do to him. But that might include doing anything good
to
>>others, because it might make them feel helpless, inferior, and needy. The
>>latter fosters a lack of involvement, trust and co-operation, each of us
>>being an island unto ourselves.
>> Christianity is a choice of aiming to be a loving, caring person in
the
>>image of Christ, one fit for His Kingdom of Heaven.
>>
>Frank, a truly spiritual religion is never popular because it isn't
>profitable.
When it comes to profitability I let Jesus do the speaking, for He has
much to say on the subject.
Your book of life is flawed, in order for you to be
>convincing, you must be convinced yourself.
I am convinced by Jesus , who convinces you?
The doctrine of forcing
>your belief is a complete contradiction to what Jesus instructs.
I see. Everyone advocating anything or anyone, is "forcing" you? Are you
the kind of guy who made his parents' life hell for telling him to be "good
person"?
Going
>out and making passive mentions, assessing the reception and proceeding
>only if it's welcomed is what Jesus had in mind.
I see. That's why they crucified Him. I think you live in wonderland.
Not your "beat them
>into submission" attitude, which is Judaism.
Glad you notice I am NOT an "eye for an eye" Judaist, but a "love your
enemy" Christian.
Atheists are more like
>Christ than you because, in part, they object to the church fallacies,
Why are one of the millions who discovered that there isn't a perfect
church, nor a perfect pastor nor anyone or anything perfect? LOL Should I
remind you, that you are here not to waste your life finding fault, which is
easy enough for there are many, but to perfect the imperfect, which is
difficult?
>just as Jesus originally objected to the same synagogue fallacies that
>confuse you yet.
>
As is obvious from what you write, you yourself are subject to plenty of
"fallacies" yourself. So, considering you like to be a contrarian, what have
you done lately to "object" to the cruelty and man's inhumanity to man? Why
not start writing about the attempt by the Jews to turn the Sainai desert
into an enormous Gulag reserved for their native population who "object " to
being dispossessed?
Pastor Frank
Gal:4:6: And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son
Pastor Frank
the failures, i.e. those atheists who in Christian drags go and do the exact
opposite from what Christ commanded, in order to bring the Christ and His
teaching into disrepute. But then you seem to be easily fooled by the devil
and his minions, aren't you.
Embrace Christ NOW, and be true to what you know to be right and just in
Him.
Alan Wostenberg
>> Lib, we don't believe what we do because "we like it", but because it's
>> true.
>
>
> ===>You are stating it backward.
> You believe it is true because you like it.
You are mistaken since there are a number of truths I believe that I do
not like. The fall; hell; Satan; the duty not to return unkind words
with unkindness...
>> We love the truth and will that it be recognized and excepted
>> everywhere.
>
>
> ===>You love what you BELIEVE to be the "truth" enough to
> be willing to FORCE it on everyone else if you can, or at least
> to condemn everyone who does not believe it. Even if the
> one considers himself a Christian, since you have your own
> private, subjective definition of what a "Christian" is supposed
> to be.
Such affairs would only bother one with Christian expectations of unity.
You're the most christ-haunted atheist around, Lib!
Let those who call themselves Christian define their term. As for
Catholics, it is hardly a matter of "private subjective definition".
The creed and catechism purport to state truths as objective as
mathematics. As such they are either true or false, but not "personal
and subjective".
Don't the protestants promulgate similar documents?
-Alan Wostenberg
Libertarius
===>"Those atheists"???
Thanks for a good laugh! -- L.
Libertarius
> > Wostenberg wrote:
>
> >> Lib, we don't believe what we do because "we like it", but because it's
> >> true.
> >
> >
> > ===>You are stating it backward.
> > You believe it is true because you like it.
>
> You are mistaken since there are a number of truths I believe that I do
> not like.
===>You must LIKE the idea if you choose to believe it.
> The fall; hell; Satan; the duty not to return unkind words
> with unkindness...
>
> >> We love the truth and will that it be recognized and excepted
> >> everywhere.
> >
> >
> > ===>You love what you BELIEVE to be the "truth" enough to
> > be willing to FORCE it on everyone else if you can, or at least
> > to condemn everyone who does not believe it. Even if the
> > one considers himself a Christian, since you have your own
> > private, subjective definition of what a "Christian" is supposed
> > to be.
>
> Such affairs would only bother one with Christian expectations of unity.
> You're the most christ-haunted atheist around, Lib!
>
> Let those who call themselves Christian define their term. As for
> Catholics, it is hardly a matter of "private subjective definition".
>
> The creed and catechism purport to state truths as objective as
> mathematics. As such they are either true or false, but not "personal
> and subjective".
===If you did not LIKE it, subjectively,
you would become a Protestant (or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist
or some other kind of ex-Catholic).
> Don't the protestants promulgate similar documents?
===>Most of them do.
Libertarius
===========
Pastor Frank
>> Wostenberg wrote:
>>
>> ===>You are stating it backward.
>> You believe it is true because you like it.
>
>You are mistaken since there are a number of truths I believe that I do
>not like. The fall; hell; Satan; the duty not to return unkind words
>with unkindness...
>
atheists to stomp on. Christ wasn't particularly "kind" to the conceited,
for they needed a wake-up call then as they need it now. See below.
Pastor Frank
Jesus in Matt. 23:28: Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous
unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good
things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth
good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth
evil things."
--Jesus in Matt. 12:34,35
"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders,
adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies".
--Jesus in Matt. 23:33:
"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the
damnation of hell"?
--Jesus in Matt. 15:19:
Adelphos
>Adelphos wrote in message ...
<snip>
>>Frank, a truly spiritual religion is never popular because it isn't
>>profitable.
>
> When it comes to profitability I let Jesus do the speaking, for He has
>much to say on the subject.
>
I can agree to that:
53. His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision useful or not?"
He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children
already circumcised from their mother.
==
Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every
respect."
==
>Your book of life is flawed, in order for you to be
>>convincing, you must be convinced yourself.
>
> I am convinced by Jesus , who convinces you?
>
Jesus lives, yet he is dead, by what method did he convince you?
>>The doctrine of forcing
>>your belief is a complete contradiction to what Jesus instructs.
>
> I see. Everyone advocating anything or anyone, is "forcing" you? Are you
>the kind of guy who made his parents' life hell for telling him to be "good
>person"?
>
When your message relaying becomes idiotic character bashing, yes, you
are being forceful and very un-Christ like. Jesus would have never
stood around arguing over and over until all that's left are insults.
He said what he had to say, and those that have ears let them hear. If
not, he didn't really care, he knew they were just drunk, and he had
mercy, he felt that sooner or later the intoxication would subside and
they would come around and if not, then so be it as it was the Father's
will, not his or yours that matters. Jesus even admitted to not knowing
his Father's will. As I see, he would push his point and if anyone
wanted to hear more, they'd follow him and listen. I can't recall any
scripture where his disciples were chained, dragged, whipped and forced
to follow and listen.
How can you now follow Jesus, where is he outside of your mind? Where
is heaven?
>>Going
>>out and making passive mentions, assessing the reception and proceeding
>>only if it's welcomed is what Jesus had in mind.
>
> I see. That's why they crucified Him. I think you live in wonderland.
>
Of course they crucified him for this reason. He was preaching of an
inner commitment that doesn't require a church with leaders and
teachers. Apparently, Jesus' followers ceased in offerings of atonement
and forgiveness among others. That really pissed the pharisees to the
point of conspiracy, in order to have him killed under the law. Jesus
died in name of the truth he tried to share. His philosophy. It was
twisted and exploited. Jesus died for his cause, not your sins.
there is but one teacher
>Not your "beat them
>>into submission" attitude, which is Judaism.
>
> Glad you notice I am NOT an "eye for an eye" Judaist, but a "love your
>enemy" Christian.
>
Since when? Is there no understanding found in loving someone? You're
not thinking "control" and calling it "love" are you?
>Atheists are more like
>>Christ than you because, in part, they object to the church fallacies,
>
> Why are one of the millions who discovered that there isn't a perfect
>church, nor a perfect pastor nor anyone or anything perfect? LOL Should I
>remind you, that you are here not to waste your life finding fault, which is
>easy enough for there are many, but to perfect the imperfect, which is
>difficult?
>
I'm not finding fault. I'm discussing possibilities with intelligent
people. Some laugh at me, some are sincere and whatever running jokes
there may be, none of that matters to me, there are benefits in spending
time forcing myself to think about this stuff.
You, OTOH, are one of the major fault finders Frank. It really isn't my
business, but I can't resist in pointing out some of the things that,
evidently, you don't realize you're doing. You constantly quote Jesus
and tell people to be as he is, but you are failing to be a proper
example IMO. Not to taunt you, I'm just trying to show you what I think
you don't see in yourself. Who am I? Nobody more than you and if you
can preach to others, then I can certainly preach to you.
>>just as Jesus originally objected to the same synagogue fallacies that
>>confuse you yet.
>>
> As is obvious from what you write, you yourself are subject to plenty of
>"fallacies" yourself. So, considering you like to be a contrarian, what have
>you done lately to "object" to the cruelty and man's inhumanity to man? Why
>not start writing about the attempt by the Jews to turn the Sainai desert
>into an enormous Gulag reserved for their native population who "object " to
>being dispossessed?
>
I never claim to have all the answers. I don't know exactly what I
believe as an absolute, in many topics, not just god. As for the Jews,
I don't care what they do, they're only human. It may seem
anti-Semitist, but I don't think the Jews are God's chosen people, nor
was there ever a promised land, unless you accept earth as a whole to be
the promised land. It may make sense that way.
Pastor Frank
>"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am convinced by Jesus , who convinces you?
>>
>Jesus lives, yet he is dead, by what method did he convince you?
>
when a beloved one dies he / she lives on in his heart and is still very
much a part of his life.
>>
>> I see. Everyone advocating anything or anyone, is "forcing" you? Are
you
>>the kind of guy who made his parents' life hell for telling him to be
"good
>>person"?
>>
>When your message relaying becomes idiotic character bashing, yes, you
>are being forceful and very un-Christ like. Jesus would have never
>stood around arguing over and over until all that's left are insults.
>He said what he had to say, and those that have ears let them hear. If
>not, he didn't really care, he knew they were just drunk, and he had
>mercy, he felt that sooner or later the intoxication would subside and
>they would come around and if not, then so be it as it was the Father's
>will, not his or yours that matters. Jesus even admitted to not knowing
>his Father's will. As I see, he would push his point and if anyone
>wanted to hear more, they'd follow him and listen. I can't recall any
>scripture where his disciples were chained, dragged, whipped and forced
>to follow and listen.
>
fools of true-believers of all kinds. I just changed targets. Where at one
time I flamed theists, I now enjoy bashing flaming and trashing atheists.
But you will notice, I always try to point Christ out to them, as the the
one they will have to justify themselves to, not to me.
>How can you now follow Jesus, where is he outside of your mind?
>
That makes no sense. A loved one is always present in your heart and
mind, and certainly not "outside".
>
>Where is heaven?
>
That depends on your definition of the word "heaven". Mine coinsides
with Franklin's:
"By heaven, we understand a state of happiness, infinite in degree and
eternal in duration".
>
>Jesus
>died in name of the truth he tried to share. His philosophy. It was
>twisted and exploited. Jesus died for his cause, not your sins.
>
That is a false assumption.
>>
>> Why are one of the millions who discovered that there isn't a perfect
>>church, nor a perfect pastor nor anyone or anything perfect? LOL Should I
>>remind you, that you are here not to waste your life finding fault, which
is
>>easy enough for there are many, but to perfect the imperfect, which is
>>difficult?
>
>I'm not finding fault.
You had me fooled.
>
>You, OTOH, are one of the major fault finders Frank. It really isn't my
>business, but I can't resist in pointing out some of the things that,
>evidently, you don't realize you're doing. You constantly quote Jesus
>and tell people to be as he is, but you are failing to be a proper
>example IMO. Not to taunt you, I'm just trying to show you what I think
>you don't see in yourself. Who am I? Nobody more than you and if you
>can preach to others, then I can certainly preach to you.
>
Like I said, I was a trashing and flaming atheist most of my life. With
a couple of beers as fuel I could keep you up all night telling you what's
WRONG with the world, and by the time I was done, you wouldn't trust your
own mother anymore.
In these NGs I try to judge actions only, not people. I can't help it,
that some atheist actions strike me as funny. May the Lord forgive me.
Yet it would be better for you to preach a positive gospel, like the
"Good News" of Jesus Christ, and confine your criticism to the post, rather
than the poster.
Pastor Frank
"Judge not, that ye be not judged"
--Jesus in Matt 7:1
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and
with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
--Jesus in Mat 7:2
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye
shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.
--Jesus in Luke 6:37
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all
judgment unto the Son:
--Jesus in John 5:22
Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
--Jesus in John 8:15
Libertarius
> I was a trashing flaming atheist most of my life, and I like to make
> fools of true-believers of all kinds. I just changed targets.
===>Were you less of a moron then than you are now?
It is doubtful.
Libertarius
============
Pastor Frank
>Pastor Frank wrote:
>
>> I was a trashing flaming atheist most of my life, and I like to make
>> fools of true-believers of all kinds. I just changed targets.
>
>===>Were you less of a moron then than you are now?
>It is doubtful.
>
prove to yourself, that you are NOT a moron, you should be the judge of
that, don't you think? LOL Just keep telling yourself "I'm NOT a moron like
he is, I'm NOT a moron like he is" over and over till you believe it.
But then Christ said, those elevating themselves will be brought low,
and the first shall be last etc., so in the end I would rather be a MOROS
DIA CHRISTON, wouldn't you?
Pastor Frank
Mt:19:30: But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be
first.
Alan Wostenberg
>>not like. The fall; hell; Satan; the duty not to return unkind words
>>with unkindness...
>>
>
> Not quite, Al. Atheists interpret Christian "kindness" as door mats for
> atheists to stomp on. Christ wasn't particularly "kind" to the conceited,
> for they needed a wake-up call then as they need it now. See below.
Point taken. I wouldn't want to mistake kindness for passivity or
indolence. It something deep and strong and related to holy meekness, of
which Our Lord said "Learn from me for I am meek and humble of heart".
In Christ are so many natural opposites coincident! How would you
reconcile the holy meekness of Mt 11:29 with the holy anger of Mt 12:23?
-Alan
Alan Wostenberg
>> Alan: You are mistaken since there are a number of truths I believe that I do
>> not like.
>
>
> ===>You must LIKE the idea if you choose to believe it.
Maybe you believe what you do because you like it.
As for me, I don't like the fact of the Fall, hell, sin, or Lucifer. And
I do believe them to be true.
>> Let those who call themselves Christian define their term. As for
>> Catholics, it is no matter of "private subjective definition".
>>
>> The creed and catechism purport to state truths as objective as
>> mathematics. As such they are either true or false, but not "personal
>> and subjective".
>
>
> ===If you did not LIKE it, subjectively,
> you would become a Protestant (or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist
> or some other kind of ex-Catholic).
Do you believe that because you like it?
No more do I believe the articles of the creed because I like them, then
I believe the laws of gravity, because I like them.
-Alan
jwk
> Alan Wostenberg wrote in message <3CCFFDA9...@attbi.com>...
> >> Wostenberg wrote:
> >>
> >> ===>You are stating it backward.
> >> You believe it is true because you like it.
> >
> >You are mistaken since there are a number of truths I believe that I do
> >not like. The fall; hell; Satan; the duty not to return unkind words
> >with unkindness...
> >
> Not quite, Al. Atheists interpret Christian "kindness" as door mats for
> atheists to stomp on. Christ wasn't particularly "kind" to the conceited,
> for they needed a wake-up call then as they need it now. See below.
Crap Frank. Atheists treat you bastards a hell of a lot better than
you treat us. You don't see us trying to strip your freedoms or even
your citizenship away. All you have to bitch about is your treatment
in this, ATHEIST newsgroup. In the real world we are the ones getting
abused. The poor, threatened, minority Christian is a Christian myth.
jwk
BAAWA
socode
: Not quite, Al. Atheists interpret Christian "kindness" as door mats
for
: atheists to stomp on.
So turn the other cheek.
: Pastor Frank
socode.
Libertarius
> Libertarius wrote in message <3CD0BC11.BE8C7AA@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
> >Pastor Frank wrote:
> >
> >> I was a trashing flaming atheist most of my life, and I like to make
> >> fools of true-believers of all kinds. I just changed targets.
> >
> >===>Were you less of a moron then than you are now?
> >It is doubtful.
> >
> Are you asking me, Libertine? Since it's you who is so desperate to
> prove to yourself, that you are NOT a moron, you should be the judge of
> that, don't you think? LOL Just keep telling yourself "I'm NOT a moron like
> he is, I'm NOT a moron like he is" over and over till you believe it.
===>I don't need to do such moronic thing.
Is that what YOU are doing?
> But then Christ said, those elevating themselves will be brought low,
===>When did "Christ" say that?
>
> and the first shall be last etc.,
===>When did "Christ" say THAT?
> so in the end I would rather be a MOROS
> DIA CHRISTON, wouldn't you?
===>No, but if that's what you wished to be, it is
easy to confirm that you have arrived!
Libertarius
============
Libertarius
> >> Alan: You are mistaken since there are a number of truths I believe that I do
> >> not like.
> >
> >
> > ===>You must LIKE the idea if you choose to believe it.
>
> Maybe you believe what you do because you like it.
===>Of course!
Does not even your founder Saul/Paul suggest to
"examine everything carefully and to hold fast to
that which is good"???
> As for me, I don't like the fact of the Fall, hell, sin, or Lucifer. And
> I do believe them to be true.
>
> >> Let those who call themselves Christian define their term. As for
> >> Catholics, it is no matter of "private subjective definition".
> >>
> >> The creed and catechism purport to state truths as objective as
> >> mathematics. As such they are either true or false, but not "personal
> >> and subjective".
> >
> >
> > ===If you did not LIKE it, subjectively,
> > you would become a Protestant (or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist
> > or some other kind of ex-Catholic).
>
> Do you believe that because you like it?
===>Of course. I examine things, and what I find "good",
i.e. what I like intellectually, I keep. What appears absurd,
I don't like, so I discard.
That is what I mean by "like".
> No more do I believe the articles of the creed because I like them, then
> I believe the laws of gravity, because I like them.
===>Perhaps you need to define "like". -- L.
Pastor Frank
after His own heart, when David had a man killed to get his wife etc. Yet it
was God who lamented David's transgressions and warned David of the
inescapable consequences of his actions. And how can Jesus be perfect
condemning all Pharisees wholesale, when we would preface our critical
remarks with: "Some" or "too many Pharisees......." etc.
So we must assume there is another dimension to being perfect in God's
eyes, which isn't obvious to us but which rest in, and is justified by our
faith in God's grace.
Pastor Frank
"For the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."
-2 Corinthians 3:6
Pastor Frank
news:<10202812...@arakis.wincom.net>...
>> Alan Wostenberg wrote in message <3CCFFDA9...@attbi.com>...
>> >> Wostenberg wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ===>You are stating it backward.
>> >> You believe it is true because you like it.
>> >
>> >You are mistaken since there are a number of truths I believe that I do
>> >not like. The fall; hell; Satan; the duty not to return unkind words
>> >with unkindness...
>> >
>> Not quite, Al. Atheists interpret Christian "kindness" as door mats
for
>> atheists to stomp on. Christ wasn't particularly "kind" to the conceited,
>> for they needed a wake-up call then as they need it now. See below.
>
>Crap Frank. Atheists treat you bastards
It never takes an atheist long to show his virulent hatred from hell and
lose all credibility. LOL
a hell of a lot better than
>you treat us. You don't see us trying to strip your freedoms or even
>your citizenship away.
Prove your point are admit you are lying.
All you have to bitch about is your treatment
>in this, ATHEIST newsgroup. In the real world we are the ones getting
>abused. The poor, threatened, minority Christian is a Christian myth.
>
Is that why we are subjected to censorship if not prohibition to speak
of our God in public? Is that why our kids suffer sanctions and are
suspended if not expelled from schools because they speak or write about
their Christian beliefs?
You atheists had it too good for too long, it's time we fought back and
regained our freedom of speech and worship. We even give you leave to preach
your atheism to your hearts' content, as long as you don't just trash our
beliefs and flame our believers.
Ashland Henderson
> > lib===>That attitude is expressed, in part, by the "positive"
> > form of the "Golden Rule": "DO TO OTHERS what you
> > would want them to do to you."
> > That is a gross disregard for the rights and privacy of
> > others.
>
> Err has no rights, and truth is an obligation. So how can telling a man
> the Gospel truth disregard his rights and provacy? There is no liberty
> without truth.
Now if only your truth agreed with every one else's truth.
> > Now, "DON'T DO to others what you would NOT
> > want others to do to you", as expressed in most such
> > "rules", does make sense.
> > "Do unto others" is an encouragement to force upon
> > others what you happen to believe is good for them because
> > YOU like it. In the Dark Ages of Christianity it was believed
> > that one had to FORCE people into the "faith" and ultimately
> > into "heaven" -- even if one had to kill those who resisted.
>
> Lib, we don't believe what we do because "we like it", but because it's
> true. We love the truth and will that it be recognized and excepted
> everywhere.
Funny, that's what all the other religions say as well. Too bad they
don't all agree with you.
thomasp
> > Wostenberg wrote:
>
> >> Lib, we don't believe what we do because "we like it", but because it's
> >> true.
> >
> >
> > ===>You are stating it backward.
> > You believe it is true because you like it.
>
>
> You are mistaken since there are a number of truths I believe that I do
> not like. The fall; hell; Satan; the duty not to return unkind words
> with unkindness...
You want to hold on to the entire package. Rejecting one part
undermines it all.
>
>
> >> We love the truth and will that it be recognized and excepted
> >> everywhere.
> >
> >
> > ===>You love what you BELIEVE to be the "truth" enough to
> > be willing to FORCE it on everyone else if you can, or at least
> > to condemn everyone who does not believe it. Even if the
> > one considers himself a Christian, since you have your own
> > private, subjective definition of what a "Christian" is supposed
> > to be.
>
>
>
> Such affairs would only bother one with Christian expectations of unity.
> You're the most christ-haunted atheist around, Lib!
>
> Let those who call themselves Christian define their term. As for
> Catholics, it is hardly a matter of "private subjective definition".
>
> The creed and catechism purport to state truths as objective as
> mathematics. As such they are either true or false, but not "personal
> and subjective".
It is not objective because there is no objective reason to believe in
it. You have the teachings of your church. You have no objective
evidence. It may not be "private subjective", but it is subjective.
>
> Don't the protestants promulgate similar documents?
>
With just as much objective justification as your church.
> -Alan Wostenberg
thomasp
You have objective evidence for the laws of gravity; it cannot be a
matter of liking or not liking. Your religious doctrines are,
however, totally subjective, whether you got them from your church or
you made them up yourself.
>
> -Alan
Adelphos
>Adelphos wrote in message <9an0dukd04sf6okg7...@4ax.com>...
>>"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am convinced by Jesus , who convinces you?
>>>
>>Jesus lives, yet he is dead, by what method did he convince you?
>>
> Surely you can come up with and answer to that one? In a normal person,
>when a beloved one dies he / she lives on in his heart and is still very
>much a part of his life.
>
Frank, I can't. Tell me how Christ communicates with you.
>>> I see. Everyone advocating anything or anyone, is "forcing" you? Are
>you
>>>the kind of guy who made his parents' life hell for telling him to be
>"good
>>>person"?
>>>
>>When your message relaying becomes idiotic character bashing, yes, you
>>are being forceful and very un-Christ like. Jesus would have never
>>stood around arguing over and over until all that's left are insults.
>>He said what he had to say, and those that have ears let them hear. If
>>not, he didn't really care, he knew they were just drunk, and he had
>>mercy, he felt that sooner or later the intoxication would subside and
>>they would come around and if not, then so be it as it was the Father's
>>will, not his or yours that matters. Jesus even admitted to not knowing
>>his Father's will. As I see, he would push his point and if anyone
>>wanted to hear more, they'd follow him and listen. I can't recall any
>>scripture where his disciples were chained, dragged, whipped and forced
>>to follow and listen.
>>
> I was a trashing flaming atheist most of my life, and I like to make
>fools of true-believers of all kinds. I just changed targets. Where at one
>time I flamed theists, I now enjoy bashing flaming and trashing atheists.
>But you will notice, I always try to point Christ out to them, as the the
>one they will have to justify themselves to, not to me.
>
You just changed targets? So, you're not a man of the faith then?
I'll continue as if you are...
If it's true that Christ is the judge, why are you trashing and flaming
them in Christ's name? If you really know Christ, it is said that you
are in danger above all the others. What about your own day of
judgement?
>>How can you now follow Jesus, where is he outside of your mind?
>>
> That makes no sense. A loved one is always present in your heart and
>mind, and certainly not "outside".
>
It is written, the kingdom is within and without. Where is Christ
outside of your mind?
>>Where is heaven?
>>
> That depends on your definition of the word "heaven". Mine coinsides
>with Franklin's:
>"By heaven, we understand a state of happiness, infinite in degree and
>eternal in duration".
>
That's a fairly reasonable definition.
>>Jesus
>>died in name of the truth he tried to share. His philosophy. It was
>>twisted and exploited. Jesus died for his cause, not your sins.
>>
> That is a false assumption.
>
How?
>>> Why are one of the millions who discovered that there isn't a perfect
>>>church, nor a perfect pastor nor anyone or anything perfect? LOL Should I
>>>remind you, that you are here not to waste your life finding fault, which
>is
>>>easy enough for there are many, but to perfect the imperfect, which is
>>>difficult?
>>
>>I'm not finding fault.
>
> You had me fooled.
>
Okay, I find fault in you, not them. Atheists aren't throwing around a
doctrine that includes "be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is
perfect". Your own imperfection is not excusable, you've been
instructed to overcome hatred, makeup for all you lack and become a
godly godling.
>>You, OTOH, are one of the major fault finders Frank. It really isn't my
>>business, but I can't resist in pointing out some of the things that,
>>evidently, you don't realize you're doing. You constantly quote Jesus
>>and tell people to be as he is, but you are failing to be a proper
>>example IMO. Not to taunt you, I'm just trying to show you what I think
>>you don't see in yourself. Who am I? Nobody more than you and if you
>>can preach to others, then I can certainly preach to you.
>>
> Like I said, I was a trashing and flaming atheist most of my life. With
>a couple of beers as fuel I could keep you up all night telling you what's
>WRONG with the world, and by the time I was done, you wouldn't trust your
>own mother anymore.
>
I don't need any help in that department.
Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those who are
bitter of heart.
> In these NGs I try to judge actions only, not people. I can't help it,
>that some atheist actions strike me as funny. May the Lord forgive me.
>
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have
tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify
again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
Looks like asking forgiveness over and over achieves nothing anywhere
but in your mind.
> Yet it would be better for you to preach a positive gospel, like the
>"Good News" of Jesus Christ, and confine your criticism to the post, rather
>than the poster.
>
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all
things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of
any.
Libertarius
> Alan Wostenberg wrote in message <3CD14D08...@attbi.com>...
> >Pastor Frank wrote:
> >> Alan Wostenberg wrote in message <3CCFFDA9...@attbi.com>...
> >>>
> >>>You are mistaken since there are a number of truths I believe that I do
> >>>not like. The fall; hell; Satan; the duty not to return unkind words
> >>>with unkindness...
> >>
> >> Not quite, Al. Atheists interpret Christian "kindness" as door mats for
> >> atheists to stomp on. Christ wasn't particularly "kind" to the conceited,
> >> for they needed a wake-up call then as they need it now. See below.
> >
> >Point taken. I wouldn't want to mistake kindness for passivity or
> >indolence. It something deep and strong and related to holy meekness, of
> >which Our Lord said "Learn from me for I am meek and humble of heart".
> >In Christ are so many natural opposites coincident! How would you
> >reconcile the holy meekness of Mt 11:29 with the holy anger of Mt 12:23?
> >
> Yes Al. That is one of those mysteries. How could God call David a man
> after His own heart, when David had a man killed to get his wife etc. Yet it
> was God who lamented David's transgressions and warned David of the
> inescapable consequences of his actions.
===>Poor Sheepherder can't tell the difference between reality and
fictional stories about a legendary king.
> And how can Jesus be perfect
> condemning all Pharisees wholesale, when we would preface our critical
> remarks with: "Some" or "too many Pharisees......." etc.
===>Jesus was just another human being, with many of the imperfections of
his species. You confuse the deified "Jesus Christos" with the real man.
> So we must assume there is another dimension to being perfect in God's
> eyes, which isn't obvious to us but which rest in, and is justified by our
> faith in God's grace.
===>YOU "must assume" such absurdities because you are unable or
refusing to see the objective realities behind those stories.
Libertarius
============
Pastor Frank
>Pastor Frank wrote:
>>
>> so in the end I would rather be a MOROS
>> DIA CHRISTON, wouldn't you?
>
>===>No, but if that's what you wished to be, it is
>easy to confirm that you have arrived!
>
tracks, that is if you want to live. For all those stuck in the competitive
mode can neither see nor enter the Kingdom of Heaven where the prevailing
mode is co-operative.
Pastor Frank
Jesus answered and said unto him: Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
-- John 3:3
Libertarius
===>Poor Sheepherder!
The Graham & Son team speaks in public all over the world all the time.
Lesser know preachers do the same.
So, who is stopping them?
> Is that why our kids suffer sanctions and are
> suspended if not expelled from schools because they speak or write about
> their Christian beliefs?
===>Because the founders in their good sense made it unlawful for
Government to support any religion. Public schools are Government
schools. But no one stops you from going to a religious school or from
starting one, do they?
>
> You atheists had it too good for too long, it's time we fought back and
> regained our freedom of speech and worship.
===>You want to TAKE AWAY people's freedoms, not asserting your own.
> We even give you leave to preach
> your atheism to your hearts' content, as long as you don't just trash our
> beliefs and flame our believers.
===>Ah, but YOU can trash the beliefs of others who disagree with you,
and the non-believers all you want even now. So, what more would you
like?
BTW, I am NOT an "atheist", not am I defending them, or the Catholics,
Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Santerias, etc. because of any agreement with
THEIR beliefs. But everyone with any knowledge of history knows what
runaway religionists can do to the rest of the world.
You're just a self-righteous totalitarian who would love to return the
world
the Christian Millennium, a.k.a. the Dark Ages.
Libertarius
============
Pastor Frank
>"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote:
>>Adelphos wrote in message <9an0dukd04sf6okg7...@4ax.com>...
>>>"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am convinced by Jesus , who convinces you?
>>>>
>>>Jesus lives, yet he is dead, by what method did he convince you?
>>>
>> Surely you can come up with and answer to that one? In a normal
person,
>>when a beloved one dies he / she lives on in his heart and is still very
>>much a part of his life.
>>
>Frank, I can't. Tell me how Christ communicates with you.
>
He tends to live on in the other person's heart and mind, and one is likely
to act within the parameter of approval of that person. Hence Christians
always ask themselves WWJD -What Would Jesus Do?
>>
>> I was a trashing flaming atheist most of my life, and I like to make
>>fools of true-believers of all kinds. I just changed targets. Where at one
>>time I flamed theists, I now enjoy bashing flaming and trashing atheists.
>>But you will notice, I always try to point Christ out to them, as the the
>>one they will have to justify themselves to, not to me.
>>
>You just changed targets? So, you're not a man of the faith then?
>I'll continue as if you are...
>
>If it's true that Christ is the judge, why are you trashing and flaming
>them in Christ's name? If you really know Christ, it is said that you
>are in danger above all the others. What about your own day of
>judgement?
>
are perfect, but we try.
Are you trying, and if you do, what standards are you trying to achieve,
after whose example?
Pastor Frank
<441d41d1.02050...@posting.google.com>...
You are making false assumptions again. There is far more agreement
among different religions than disagreements. All religions aim at
perfection. Read Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy for a long list of
religious parallel aims.
Libertarius
> Libertarius wrote in message <3CD16953.5C73224C@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
> >Pastor Frank wrote:
> >>
> >> so in the end I would rather be a MOROS
> >> DIA CHRISTON, wouldn't you?
> >
> >===>No, but if that's what you wished to be, it is
> >easy to confirm that you have arrived!
> >
> Yes, it's obvious you suffer from terminal hubris and need to change
> tracks, that is if you want to live. For all those stuck in the competitive
> mode can neither see nor enter the Kingdom of Heaven where the prevailing
> mode is co-operative.
===>"Co-operative" meaning going along with YOU!
Alan Wostenberg
I mean by "like" matters of taste, not truth. I like spicy indian food,
bluegrass music, country dancing. But tastes to differ, and on matters
of taste, there is no arguing.
But on matters of truth, men should debate, to "hold fast to what is
good" as you aptly quoted St. Paul. So when you say you "examine it
intellectually...discard the absurd" you are seeking truth, not likes or
dislikes.
Another term I've noticed is used very loosely here is "subjective" as
when thomasp said of my Catholic faith "doctrines are totally
subjective". This is to totally misunderstand the creed which *claims*
to make objective statements about extramental reality, like physics.
The creed may be prove as false as geocentrism, but it's not subjective.
-Alan
Alan Wostenberg
>> No more do I believe the articles of the creed because I like them, then
>> I believe the laws of gravity, because I like them.
>
>
> You have objective evidence for the laws of gravity; it cannot be a
> matter of liking or not liking. Your religious doctrines are,
> however, totally subjective, whether you got them from your church or
> you made them up yourself.
Neither can religous doctrine be a matter of liking or disliking. Do you
think finding evidence shifts something from category "subjective" to
"objective"?
-Alan
Alan Wostenberg
>> Err has no rights, and truth is an obligation. So how can telling a man
>> the Gospel truth disregard his rights and provacy? There is no liberty
>> without truth.
>
>
> Now if only your truth agreed with every one else's truth.
Shall the dissenters hold Truth hostage?
>> Lib, we don't believe what we do because "we like it", but because it's
>> true. We love the truth and will that it be recognized and excepted
>> everywhere.
>
>
> Funny, that's what all the other religions say as well. Too bad they
> don't all agree with you.
You would not find religous disagreement a bad thing unless you had some
expectation of doctrinal unity. So you can eliminate all those faiths
that profess no creed. This narrows your field considerably.
-Alan
socode
"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote in message
: It's a weakness of mine. Contrary to atheist expectations no
Christians
: are perfect, but we try.
I've seen.
: Pastor Frank
socode
socode
"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote in message
: So we must assume there is another dimension to being perfect in God's
: eyes, which isn't obvious to us but which rest in, and is justified by our
: faith in God's grace.
In other words, it's a load of tosh, and it can't be explained, but
you want to believe in it anyway.
: Pastor Frank
socode
socode
"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote in message
: You are making false assumptions again. There is far more agreement
: among different religions than disagreements. All religions aim at
: perfection. Read Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy for a long list of
: religious parallel aims.
Christans believe Jesus Christ was an incarnation of the one deity. Other
religions do not, and some do not believe that there is -one- true deity.
From that alone, it would appear that there are unreconcilable differences
between the world's main religions.
: Pastor Frank
socode
socode
"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote in message
: Is that why we are subjected to censorship if not prohibition to speak
: of our God in public? Is that why our kids suffer sanctions and are
: suspended if not expelled from schools because they speak or write about
: their Christian beliefs?
That would almost be funny, if you weren't serious.
: You atheists had it too good for too long, it's time we fought back
and
: regained our freedom of speech and worship.
You have both. So have atheists.
: We even give you leave to preach your atheism to your hearts' content
Oh, thank you. Atheists must be so grateful for your tolerance.
, as long as you don't just trash our beliefs and flame our believers.
I have nothing but contempt for your beliefs, but I respect your right
to hold them.
: Pastor Frank
socode
thomasp
The total lack of evidence for a belief makes that belief subjective.
You have no, objective reason for your religious beliefs; they are,
therefore, subjective. If one is sane, one has no choice but to
accept gravity; that is not true of your religious beliefs. It could
very well be that you do not like some of the doctrines, but accepting
them cannot be compared with accepting gravity. Your religious
beliefs may be the result of free choice, personal fantasy or
indoctrination; they are still subjective.
>
> -Alan
Ashland Henderson
I don't think I'm making false assumptions. Religions aim at many
different things, perfection included. Religions range from
propituation of capricious deities to a striving for individual
perfection and beyond. Religions
also differ strongly on their emphasis of forms and ritual and the
importance of them. Religious apologists always emphasize the
agreements
among religions and downplay the differences.
Looking at them dispassionately it appears that religion started as a
means
to control the universe and ended as a means to contro the population.
Ashland Henderson
> > Wostenberg <pw...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CCEDC6F...@attbi.com>...
>
> >> Err has no rights, and truth is an obligation. So how can telling a man
> >> the Gospel truth disregard his rights and provacy? There is no liberty
> >> without truth.
> >
> >
> > Now if only your truth agreed with every one else's truth.
>
>
> Shall the dissenters hold Truth hostage?
It's all about the perception of truth and the convincing of others that
your truth is the correct one. What the truth is or whether it has any
relation to reality is unimportant.
> >> Lib, we don't believe what we do because "we like it", but because it's
> >> true. We love the truth and will that it be recognized and excepted
> >> everywhere.
> >
> >
> > Funny, that's what all the other religions say as well. Too bad they
> > don't all agree with you.
>
>
> You would not find religous disagreement a bad thing unless you had some
> expectation of doctrinal unity. So you can eliminate all those faiths
> that profess no creed. This narrows your field considerably.
Only if you define creed in the narrowest manner possible.
jwk
Fuck you. Hatred? You're damn straight. I hate your sorry ass.
What was your point?
You challenge me to prove you fucks are trying to strip our freedom
from religion, then, right below that, you propose doing exactly this.
Point proved, fuckwad.
No xers are censored. That's just the kind of lie you fucks tell to
try and rally the troops. Your xer kids don't suffer anything
~except~ being prevented from torturing non-xians. Give ONE god damn
example of a kid being expelled, suspended or sanctioned for talking
appropriately about their beliefs in the US. Just one, fuckhead.
You don't want to be flamed? THEN GET THE HELL OUT OF AN ATHEIST
NEWSGROUP, DIPSHIT!
jwk
BAAWA
Pastor Frank
die by it as Jesus did. The principle is the Golden Rule. By what principle
do you live?
Libertarius
===>By "like" I meant what one deems acceptable.
(Definitions include "approve", "choose", and "prefer".
See Webster.)
Libertarius
===>Of course it does. Do you think otherwise? -- L.
Libertarius
===>Not only that, but there are irreconcilable differences among
Christian sects and denominations, and certainly between the theistic
and the scientific points of view, i.e. between fiction and reality.
Libertarius
===========
Libertarius
> socode wrote in message ...
> >"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >news:10203951...@arakis.wincom.net...
> >:
> >: You are making false assumptions again. There is far more agreement
> >: among different religions than disagreements. All religions aim at
> >: perfection. Read Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy for a long list of
> >: religious parallel aims.
> >
> >Christans believe Jesus Christ was an incarnation of the one deity. Other
> >religions do not, and some do not believe that there is -one- true deity.
> >From that alone, it would appear that there are unreconcilable differences
> >between the world's main religions.
> >
> Our Christian deity is principle
===>So, "principle" is the creator of heaven and earth, the father of Jesus,
the "almighty God"???
WOW! What a creed you have worked out for yourself!
Adelphos
>Adelphos wrote in message <7je3dugoa7r5hp47v...@4ax.com>...
>>"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>Adelphos wrote in message <9an0dukd04sf6okg7...@4ax.com>...
<snip>
>>Frank, I can't. Tell me how Christ communicates with you.
>>
> A beloved one is usually well known to the lover, hence when he/she dies
>He tends to live on in the other person's heart and mind, and one is likely
>to act within the parameter of approval of that person. Hence Christians
>always ask themselves WWJD -What Would Jesus Do?
<snip>
A lover usually shares life with their beloved at some point.
Sadly, I don't think most Christians know what Jesus would do, because
they don't know what Christ truly means.
>>If it's true that Christ is the judge, why are you trashing and flaming
>>them in Christ's name? If you really know Christ, it is said that you
>>are in danger above all the others. What about your own day of
>>judgement?
>>
> It's a weakness of mine. Contrary to atheist expectations no Christians
>are perfect, but we try.
>
I know Christians "try". Most of 'em are confused, they've been
indoctrinated based on services and profits, not spiritual freedom as
Jesus teaches. To Jesus, the Father was the "All".
> Are you trying, and if you do, what standards are you trying to achieve,
>after whose example?
>
Simple question requires elaborate answer...
I'm not worried about "heaven" in your sense. Heaven to me is the
beautiful universe, I just wish I could reach out and touch a nova. I
love reading anything "Jesus said", this guy's character is great. He's
a lover, a friend, an enemy, a stumbling stone and an oracle. I've
witnessed many words attributed to "Jesus" come alive in situation after
situation. The same said for other philosophers. It's the message, a
contribution to humankind's advancement, an ounce of clarity.
Perfection is not measured in how well you follow the law. Jesus said
not one jot will change in the law before all is fulfilled. Jesus was
the first martyr, making all things accomplished. The Torah no longer
applies, everything changed. The character of a person matters most of
all, not their image/lifestyle. Consequently, the type of religion [or
lack of] a person practices doesn't matter, again, it's the character.
I'm trying to achieve the luxury of spiritual freedom while allowing
others the same freedom. I consider the thoughts, not focusing on who
['s side] they are coming from. That pretty much allows "equality" for
all my brethren.
The standards are all found in truth, liberty and love (if I can ever
determine exactly what the hell that means).
The model for those standards are found in Christ, Aristotle and many
others, because it's the clarity found in the message, not the legacy
itself.
Pastor Frank
>
>means
>to control the universe and ended as a means to contro the population.
>
controlled. Religion seldom has control of life and liberty, only the state
has.
Pastor Frank
>"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>A lover usually shares life with their beloved at some point.
>Sadly, I don't think most Christians know what Jesus would do, because
>they don't know what Christ truly means.
>
>
>I'm not worried about "heaven" in your sense. Heaven to me is the
>beautiful universe, I just wish I could reach out and touch a nova.
To most people heaven means loving and caring relationships, the Kindom
of Heaven being a society where man's inhumanity to man has not only become
extinct, but become totally unthinkable.
>
>I'm trying to achieve the luxury of spiritual freedom while allowing
>others the same freedom. I consider the thoughts, not focusing on who
>['s side] they are coming from. That pretty much allows "equality" for
>all my brethren.
>
You are a dream come true for every evil minded person, for he knows you
will befriend him no matter what he does.
>The standards are all found in truth, liberty and love (if I can ever
>determine exactly what the hell that means).
>
Biblical "Love" means care. Do you care about people? Or only about
being able to "touch a nova"? Do you cheer on and celebrate the "winner"
because everybody else does, or does your heart ache for the losers, the
buralised, the terrorized, the dispossessed the tortured and the killed?
Will you mobilise your resources to help them against overwhelming
opposition from the establishment or fashionable opinion, or even those near
and dear to you?
Pastor Frank
2Cor:12:9: And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my
strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather
glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Pastor Frank
remarkable for their overwhelming similarities not their differences.
Pastor Frank
>Pastor Frank wrote:
>>
>> Our Christian deity is principle
>
>===>So, "principle" is the creator of heaven and earth, the father of
Jesus,
>the "almighty God"???
>
> WOW! What a creed you have worked out for yourself!
>
overwhelming opposition from the establishment or fashionable opinion etc.,
and even when facing imminent torture and death for persisting.
Are you a principled person Libertine or a weasel?
Alan Wostenberg
>> Neither can religous doctrine be a matter of liking or disliking. Do you
>> think finding evidence shifts something from category "subjective" to
>> "objective"?
>
>
> thomasp: The total lack of evidence for a belief makes that belief subjective.
> You have no, objective reason for your religious beliefs; they are,
> therefore, subjective. If one is sane, one has no choice but to
> accept gravity; that is not true of your religious beliefs. It could
> very well be that you do not like some of the doctrines, but accepting
> them cannot be compared with accepting gravity. Your religious
> beliefs may be the result of free choice, personal fantasy or
> indoctrination; they are still subjective.
If the total lack of evidence makes something subjective, then the
inverse squared law was subjective before Newton conducted the
experiment, and the inverse cubed law to this day is subjective.
So if I understnad you aright, the moment before Newton's cruical
experiment the inverse squared law was subjective, he took his pointer
readings, and in that act endowed it with objectivity. How'd he do it?
Is the scientist God?
But if course both always are and will be totally objective. It's just
that one's false and the other, true. Evidence doesn't change things
from subjective to objective.
It is in fact a grasp at divinity to think man can make the subjective
into the objective, which is why your doctrine is anathema to the Faith.
-Alan
Wostenberg
>
>> >> No more do I believe the articles of the creed because I like
them, then
>> >> I believe the laws of gravity, because I like them.
>
>> >
>> >
>> > ===>Perhaps you need to define "like". -- L.
>
>>
>> I mean by "like" matters of taste, not truth. I like spicy indian
food,
>> bluegrass music, country dancing. But tastes to differ, and on matters
>> of taste, there is no arguing.
>>
>> But on matters of truth, men should debate, to "hold fast to what is
>> good" as you aptly quoted St. Paul. So when you say you "examine it
>> intellectually...discard the absurd" you are seeking truth, not
likes or
>> dislikes.
>
>
> ===>By "like" I meant what one deems acceptable.
> (Definitions include "approve", "choose", and "prefer".
> See Webster.)
So Lib, do you prefer that 2+2=4? Or do you like the fact "men die"? Or
deem it acceptable that the earth goes round the sun? What hubris!
Truth is not about approving, choosing, or prefering. It is submitting
oneself to the real, and closely related to the virtue of humility.
-Alan
Adelphos
>Adelphos wrote in message <09j5dukqkt70c7lof...@4ax.com>...
>>"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>A lover usually shares life with their beloved at some point.
>>Sadly, I don't think most Christians know what Jesus would do, because
>>they don't know what Christ truly means.
>>
> Do YOU know what Christ "truly means"?
>
Christ means freedom in truth, which requires acceptance and tolerance.
>>I'm not worried about "heaven" in your sense. Heaven to me is the
>>beautiful universe, I just wish I could reach out and touch a nova.
>
> To most people heaven means loving and caring relationships, the Kindom
>of Heaven being a society where man's inhumanity to man has not only become
>extinct, but become totally unthinkable.
>
That heaven is impossible until it's realized that one man's humanity is
another's inhumanity. Of course, the first step towards your heaven is
within yourself.
>>I'm trying to achieve the luxury of spiritual freedom while allowing
>>others the same freedom. I consider the thoughts, not focusing on who
>>['s side] they are coming from. That pretty much allows "equality" for
>>all my brethren.
>>
> You are a dream come true for every evil minded person, for he knows you
>will befriend him no matter what he does.
>
Meanwhile, perhaps Jesus was ignorant and a dream come true for sinners
of all types, speaking and eating with them, allowing them to befriend
his ministry, no matter what they do. Lucky you. All that Jesus
requires is that you repeatedly and meaningfully ask forgiveness. I
guess you're right, friends like that are always taken advantage of.
>>The standards are all found in truth, liberty and love (if I can ever
>>determine exactly what the hell that means).
>>
> Biblical "Love" means care. Do you care about people? Or only about
>being able to "touch a nova"?
>
Today, I care about people without worry. At one point, I had equated
worry with care.
> Do you cheer on and celebrate the "winner"
>because everybody else does, or does your heart ache for the losers, the
>buralised, the terrorized, the dispossessed the tortured and the killed?
>
Spectator sports? The battle field? Myself?
Most people cheer when the home team wins and are pissed when they lose.
Concerning the battlefield/love/life, only the strong survive. For
myself, I never think about winning or loosing since we all do some of
both eventually.
>Will you mobilise your resources to help them against overwhelming
>opposition from the establishment or fashionable opinion, or even those near
>and dear to you?
>
Everyone's a victim of some type of dogma Frank. According to your
words, you were once victim. Even now, you're a victim of your own
sect. What happened, did someone beat you into submission, or did your
intoxication subside on it's own?
Everyone must find their own way and how they go about doing it isn't of
concern. Those near and dear to me are free, they aren't my little toys
thrown in a locked box until I'm ready to play with them, nor will I
throw them into the box just because I can't quite understand the way in
which they think/act.
>Pastor Frank
>
>2Cor:12:9: And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my
>strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather
>glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
>
I love it when people use this to defend themselves, yet they scream "be
perfect just as the lamb of God is perfect" in condemning others.
Libertarius
>
> Adelphos wrote in message <09j5dukqkt70c7lof...@4ax.com>...
> >"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> >A lover usually shares life with their beloved at some point.
> >Sadly, I don't think most Christians know what Jesus would do, because
> >they don't know what Christ truly means.
> >
> Do YOU know what Christ "truly means"?
===>The word "Christ" is really the
English version of the original CHRISTOS.
According to the dictionary (actually LEXICON), it is
"christos , e^, on, ( [chrio^] ) to be rubbed on,
used as ointment or salve. It comes from
CHRIO^, meaning to "touch the surface of a body slightly",
hence, to "rub, anoint with scented unguents or oil,
as was done after bathing", also to "rub or infect with poison",
including "to anoint (i. e. poison) one's arrows."
(Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott,
"A Greek-English Lexicon") It was the name
Saul/Paul's gave to the incarnate savior god of the
ancient mystery religion he modified into a fast-spreading
and sometimes virulent cult by spicing it with some artificial
Jewish flavoring.
It has since evolved into hundreds of diverse sects
and denominations.
Hope that helps.
Libertarius
====================
Libertarius
>
> Libertarius wrote in message <3CD2CC09.8E128F00@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
> >Pastor Frank wrote:
> >>
> >> Our Christian deity is principle
> >
> >===>So, "principle" is the creator of heaven and earth, the father of
> Jesus,
> >the "almighty God"???
> >
> > WOW! What a creed you have worked out for yourself!
> >
> Jesus, our God incarnate, is about being principled,
===>You wrote he was [a?] "principle".
even against
> overwhelming opposition from the establishment or fashionable opinion etc.,
===>BAA!
Revolutionary leaders are usually "principled".
> and even when facing imminent torture and death for persisting.
===>Most revolutionary leaders have.
> Are you a principled person
===>It is not whether one is or is not "principled".
It is what principles one adheres to.
As for me, I adhere to the principles of LIBERTY!
What about you, Sheepherder? Are YOU "principled"?
Libertarius
====================
Libertarius
>
> Libertarius wrote in message <3CD2ACAA.513571A2@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
> >socode wrote:
> >> "Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >> news:10203951...@arakis.wincom.net...
> >>:
> >> : You are making false assumptions again. There is far more agreement
> >> : among different religions than disagreements. All religions aim at
> >> : perfection. Read Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy for a long list
> of
> >> : religious parallel aims.
> >>
> >> Christans believe Jesus Christ was an incarnation of the one deity. Other
> >> religions do not, and some do not believe that there is -one- true deity.
> >>
> >> From that alone, it would appear that there are unreconcilable
> differences
> >> between the world's main religions.
> >
> >===>Not only that, but there are irreconcilable differences among
> >Christian sects and denominations, and certainly between the theistic
> >and the scientific points of view, i.e. between fiction and reality.
> >
> remarkable for their overwhelming similarities not their differences.
===>Sure, Sheepherder.
And you are remarkable for your overwhelming fabrications. -- L.
Libertarius
>
> > Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> >
>
> >> >> No more do I believe the articles of the creed because I like
> them, then
> >> >> I believe the laws of gravity, because I like them.
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ===>Perhaps you need to define "like". -- L.
> >
> >>
> >> I mean by "like" matters of taste, not truth. I like spicy indian
> food,
> >> bluegrass music, country dancing. But tastes to differ, and on matters
> >> of taste, there is no arguing.
> >>
> >> But on matters of truth, men should debate, to "hold fast to what is
> >> good" as you aptly quoted St. Paul. So when you say you "examine it
> >> intellectually...discard the absurd" you are seeking truth, not
> likes or
> >> dislikes.
> >
> >
> > ===>By "like" I meant what one deems acceptable.
> > (Definitions include "approve", "choose", and "prefer".
> > See Webster.)
>
===>I prefer it to 2+2=5. Don't you?
I also prefer that 1+1+1=3, not 1+1+1=1 as the
Trinitarians would have it.
Or do you like the fact "men die"?
===>I prefer the CONCLUSION that "men die" to the FICTION
and wishful thinking that discarnate men live for
ever is some "spiritual" realm.
Or
> deem it acceptable that the earth goes round the sun?
===>Not only I but the majority of people nowadays find it
much more acceptable than the Biblical cosmology. Even
apologists attempt to prove that the Biblical view is
consistent with it.
What hubris!
===>How silly!
>
> Truth is not about approving, choosing, or prefering.
===>Your arguments ar specious.
It is submitting
> oneself to the real, and closely related to the virtue of humility.
===>If you had ANY humility you would simply give up and admit that
people CHOOSE to believe what they believe because the LIKE what they
believe. But of course you dislike that point of view, so you choose
to argue against it.
Libertarius
====================
Pastor Frank
>"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>Will you mobilise your resources to help them against overwhelming
>>opposition from the establishment or fashionable opinion, or even those
near
>>and dear to you?
>
>Everyone's a victim of some type of dogma Frank.
i.e. those who perished in German gas ovens, those murdered by Pol Pot,
those languishing in the gulags of Israel, the millions whom America aborts
each year. "Dogma" indeed!!!!!!!!!!
>
Your "hands off" approach wasn't what Jesus had in mind. Loving and
caring for people finds its evidence in loving and caring actions, otherwise
it's just theory. Jesus could have sucked up the powers that be, and escape
crucifixion. He did not and stood by His principles, as did later our
Christian martyrs in the face of Rome's overwhelming might. Yet eventually
Rome crumbled in the face of Christ's persistence. That is why God's
strength is made perfect in weakness.
Pastor Frank
"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good
things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth
good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth
evil things."
--Jesus in Matt. 12:34,35
"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders,
adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies".
--Jesus in Matt. 23:33:
"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the
damnation of hell"?
--Jesus in Matt. 15:19:
Ashland Henderson
> Ashland Henderson wrote in message
> >
> >Looking at them dispassionately it appears that religion started as a
> >means
> >to control the universe and ended as a means to contro the population.
> >
> You are partially right. Religion is about having control. But not being
> controlled. Religion seldom has control of life and liberty, only the state
> has.
The two are often in close allignment.
Pastor Frank
>Pastor Frank wrote:
>>
>> Are you a principled person
>
>===>It is not whether one is or is not "principled".
>It is what principles one adheres to.
> As for me, I adhere to the principles of LIBERTY!
>
my bottom Dollar you would hate true liberty, for only animals in the wild
are free to enjoy true liberty. You wouldn't want to have the liberty of a
rat, would you? All other liberty means in effect: Having the freedom to do
unto others....................watever you can get way with.
Most people, myself included, are glad to give up some of our liberty,
so that others may have some too.
Will you voluntarily curtail your liberty so other may have some liberty
too?
Adelphos
>Adelphos wrote in message ...
>>"Pastor Frank" <fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Will you mobilise your resources to help them against overwhelming
>>>opposition from the establishment or fashionable opinion, or even those
>near
>>>and dear to you?
>>
>>Everyone's a victim of some type of dogma Frank.
> Try telling that to those who fell victim to man's inhumanity to man,
>i.e. those who perished in German gas ovens, those murdered by Pol Pot,
>those languishing in the gulags of Israel, the millions whom America aborts
>each year. "Dogma" indeed!!!!!!!!!!
>
Those abortions aren't my problem, it's the mother's choice and if she
does rot in hell, what concern is it of yours or mine? Babies aren't a
gift from God, they're either planned or occur randomly out of chaos.
I've fallen victim to my own inhumanity as well as others, it happens.
As for casualties of war, what can I do? What should God do? Those in
power are the blame Frank, and you want me to personally feel guilty
about it?
> Your "hands off" approach wasn't what Jesus had in mind. Loving and
>caring for people finds its evidence in loving and caring actions, otherwise
>it's just theory. Jesus could have sucked up the powers that be, and escape
>crucifixion. He did not and stood by His principles, as did later our
>Christian martyrs in the face of Rome's overwhelming might.
>
"Hands off approach"? What exactly do you mean by that?
Loving and caring is a hands off approach, maybe allowing for a hand
shake or hug occasionally. Of course, if Jesus had sucked up to the
powers that be, he would have accomplished nothing. However, that fact
is irrelevant, Jesus' sooth saying was what got him killed, yet he never
forced his teachings on anyone who wasn't interested. Where are the
instructions indicating the use of force in spreading the word? What
does "he who has ears, let him hear" really mean?
>Yet eventually
>Rome crumbled in the face of Christ's persistence. That is why God's
>strength is made perfect in weakness.
>
Rome crumbled in the face of Christ?! Where did you get that idea?
>Pastor Frank
>
> "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good
>things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
>A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth
>good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth
>evil things."
> --Jesus in Matt. 12:34,35
>
Imagine, this verse was spoken to the priests and etc..., not the ones
fallen short.
> "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders,
>adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies".
> --Jesus in Matt. 23:33:
>
Again, in reference to the "righteous" ones.
> "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the
>damnation of hell"?
> --Jesus in Matt. 15:19:
>
Words for the righteous once more.
Who is righteous, one who will only do what he loves, or one who will do
what he hates, with spite, because he's taught it is only right?
dummie
> Libertarius wrote in message <3CD44E83.4982A224@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH>...
> >Pastor Frank wrote:
> >>
> >> Are you a principled person
> >
> >===>It is not whether one is or is not "principled".
> >It is what principles one adheres to.
> > As for me, I adhere to the principles of LIBERTY!
> >
> That illusion of "LIBERTY" sure has you by the short hairs. I will bet
> my bottom Dollar you would hate true liberty, for only animals in the wild
> are free to enjoy true liberty. You wouldn't want to have the liberty of a
> rat, would you? All other liberty means in effect: Having the freedom to do
> unto others....................watever you can get way with.
> Most people, myself included, are glad to give up some of our liberty,
> so that others may have some too.
You have no liberty to begin with, fundie clown.
> Will you voluntarily curtail your liberty so other may have some liberty
> too?
>
> Pastor Frank
People are not as big of an asshole idiot as you Frank, and realize
common sense dictates that if you do onto others, they shall do onto
you. Since you're a dangerous fundie clown, you'll never figure that
out, and that laws do not dictate social behavior. The brain however,
does.
Libertarius
>
> Libertarius wrote in message <3CD44E83.4982A224@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH>...
> >Pastor Frank wrote:
> >>
> >> Are you a principled person
> >
> >===>It is not whether one is or is not "principled".
> >It is what principles one adheres to.
> > As for me, I adhere to the principles of LIBERTY!
> >
> That illusion of "LIBERTY" sure has you by the short hairs. I will bet
> my bottom Dollar you would hate true liberty, for only animals in the wild
> are free to enjoy true liberty. You wouldn't want to have the liberty of a
> rat, would you? All other liberty means in effect: Having the freedom to do
> unto others....................watever you can get way with.
===>Typical stupid Sheepherder interpretation.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain
a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Nygaard
<fa...@NOSPAMbigfoot.com> wrote:
>Libertarius wrote in message <3CD44E83.4982A224@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH>...
>>Pastor Frank wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you a principled person
>>
>>===>It is not whether one is or is not "principled".
>>It is what principles one adheres to.
>> As for me, I adhere to the principles of LIBERTY!
>>
> That illusion of "LIBERTY" sure has you by the short hairs. I will bet
>my bottom Dollar you would hate true liberty, for only animals in the wild
>are free to enjoy true liberty. You wouldn't want to have the liberty of a
>rat, would you? All other liberty means in effect: Having the freedom to do
>unto others....................watever you can get way with.
> Most people, myself included, are glad to give up some of our liberty,
>so that others may have some too.
> Will you voluntarily curtail your liberty so other may have some liberty
>too?
What you call "true liberty" is just primordial chaos. Liberty as the
sane part of the human species understand the term means having the
maximum amount of choice possible without breaking a moral norm.
Anders
...
A slave has to be fed. A free man is free to starve.
-Terry Pratchett, "Pyramids".
Pastor Frank
are willing to abide by it. The question is, does any one else know, and is
equally willing to abide by it?
Because of this lack of consensus, we need Christ to SET the norm and
motivate people to abide by it.
Pastor Frank
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power
to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on
his name". --John 1:12
Fred Stone
They can abide by their own. I don't mind.
> Because of this lack of consensus, we need Christ to SET the norm and
> motivate people to abide by it.
Because of this lack of consensus, YOU have no right pushing YOUR way on
anybody who isn't interested.
--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369; linux user # 254178; machine # 138214
Mark Tindall
>>===>Not only that, but there are irreconcilable differences among
>>Christian sects and denominations, and certainly between the theistic
>>and the scientific points of view, i.e. between fiction and reality.
>>
> You wish, Libertine, for you are a contrarian after all. Religions are
>remarkable for their overwhelming similarities not their differences.
Libertine is correct. Theistic and scientific points of view clash
seriously and cannot be reconciled. Creation pseudo-science is no answer.
Read Ian Plimert's 'Telling Lies For God' (with forward by Peter
Hollingworth) For the death of theism read Jack Song's books. The Roman
Catholic church assertts that it is the only true church and apart from it
there is no salvation. Similarly other denominations claim their own
exclusive truth.
Christianity is in a mess as a result of funnyMENMTALism and the Dark Age of
Penteville.
Rev Dr Mark
Pastor Frank
everyone have to fit the atheist mould? My statement still stands: Religions
in toto are remarkable more for their similarities than their differences.
Read Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy for the evidence.
Also Christian creation science is only doing to evolutionist true
believers, who claim to know all about abiogenesis and speciation, what
atheists are doing to theists, that is asking pointed questions. At least we
don't flame like atheists are wont to.
Also most atheist commentaries are setting up their own straw man to
tear down. How atheists define religion and its proprietary words and
concepts is farcical indeed, nothing more than a parody of religion, the
anchor of civilisation.
Pastor Frank
"So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love,
and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him."
--1John 4:16
Alan Wostenberg
> Mark said: Libertine is correct. Theistic and scientific points of view clash
> seriously and cannot be reconciled. Creation pseudo-science is no answer.
> Read Ian Plimert's 'Telling Lies For God' (with forward by Peter
> Hollingworth) For the death of theism read Jack Song's books. The Roman
> Catholic church assertts that it is the only true church and apart from it
> there is no salvation. Similarly other denominations claim their own
> exclusive truth.
Mark, the view that faith and science clash is an ancient one, you know.
Aquinas defeneded the unity of truth against Averoes the Muslim who
argued your line.
You're taking up a *religous* view typical of medieval Islam when you
say "theistic and scientific points of view clas seriously and cannot be
reconciled". Why?
I've never felt the force your second piont that because religions
disagree on some things, no one of them is what she claims to be: 100%
truth. If astrology doesn't discredit science why should <insert your
favorite fanatical religous group> discredit religion?
You seem to deny the possibility that the truth is knowable with
certainty and men are free. Haven't you fallen into Socratic dicta that
to know the truth is to will it?
-Alan
Wostenberg
>
> Alan: Truth is not about approving or prefering but about submitting
> >> oneself to the real, and closely related to the virtue of humility.
>
>
> people CHOOSE to believe what they believe because the LIKE what they
> believe. But of course you dislike that point of view, so you choose
> to argue against it.
In that generalization are you speaking of your personal likes and
preferences? Or the truth on behalf of all mankind?
-Alan
Mark Tindall
>Religions in toto are remarkable more for their similarities than their
>differences.
>Read Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy for the evidence.
I have. I'm also a philosophy graduate. ;-) Huxley is not the end word on
the issue.
>Also Christian creation science is only doing to evolutionist true
>believers, who claim to know all about abiogenesis and speciation, >what
atheists are doing to theists, that is asking pointed questions. >At least
we don't flame like atheists are wont to.
RUBBISH! I was there at a Creation Science 'seminar' in the 1980s when Prof
Ian Plimer was manhandled, vilified and thrown out for asking simple
questions. Fundamentalists don't like questions!
> Also most atheist commentaries are setting up their own straw >man to
tear down.
The strawman analogy is a Creationist strawman. Christians should be
interested in truth but Creationists are onlky interested in backing up
their narrow anti-intellectual bible theory. As a Christian I don't want
anything to do with their ratbaggery.
Rev Dr Mark
Believer in Exile
Oz
Mark Tindall
>Mark, the view that faith and science clash is an ancient one, you >know.
I understand what you say. My pooint is "theism" rather than faith
contradicts with science. Christian faith and science have no
contradiction.
>"theistic and scientific points of view clas seriously and cannot be
>reconciled". Why?
Theism posits a father in the sky which is contrary to all scientific
investigation. The bible stories are enacted in a three tier universe that
we know to be false.
>I've never felt the force your second piont that because religions
>disagree on some things, no one of them is what she claims to be: >100%
truth.
My argument is that no finite system or inspired book or holy person or
thing can ever contain the infinite and thus ultimate truth. Something
finite can never completely hold the infinite. Finite things can hold part
of the infinite but never infinity.
>You seem to deny the possibility that the truth is knowable with
>certainty and men are free. Haven't you fallen into Socratic dicta that
>to know the truth is to will it?
I believe truth is knowable however all truth known by people is subjective
truth and partial. I also believe that people possess freewill.
I will post more in another thread - Problems With Fundamentalism.
Libertarius
> Mark Tindall wrote in message <3cdc...@news.turboweb.net.au>...
> >Pastor Frank wrote:
> >>>===>Not only that, but there are irreconcilable differences among
> >>>Christian sects and denominations, and certainly between the theistic
> >>>and the scientific points of view, i.e. between fiction and reality.
> >>>
> >> You wish, Libertine, for you are a contrarian after all. Religions are
> >>remarkable for their overwhelming similarities not their differences.
> >
> >Libertine is correct. Theistic and scientific points of view clash
> >seriously and cannot be reconciled. Creation pseudo-science is no answer.
> >Read Ian Plimert's 'Telling Lies For God' (with forward by Peter
> >Hollingworth) For the death of theism read Jack Song's books. The Roman
> >Catholic church assertts that it is the only true church and apart from it
> >there is no salvation. Similarly other denominations claim their own
> >exclusive truth.
> >Christianity is in a mess as a result of funnyMENMTALism and the Dark Age
> of
> >Penteville.
> >
> So you found a handful of differences. So what? Does everything and
> everyone have to fit the atheist mould? My statement still stands: Religions
> in toto are remarkable more for their similarities than their differences.
===>Which religions are found in "toto"?
> Read Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy for the evidence.
===>Since when is a man's philosophy considered "evidence"?
> Also Christian creation science is only doing to evolutionist true
> believers, who claim to know all about abiogenesis and speciation, what
> atheists are doing to theists, that is asking pointed questions. At least we
> don't flame like atheists are wont to.
===>That's a LIE!
Do you think your readers are ignorant of all the nasty,
derogatory statements written by Creationists flaming
proponents of evolution as "atheists", "Satan's minions",
"liars", followers of an "evolutionist religion", etc.???
Libertarius
==============
Libertarius
> > Mark said: Libertine is correct. Theistic and scientific points of view clash
> > seriously and cannot be reconciled. Creation pseudo-science is no answer.
> > Read Ian Plimert's 'Telling Lies For God' (with forward by Peter
> > Hollingworth) For the death of theism read Jack Song's books. The Roman
> > Catholic church assertts that it is the only true church and apart from it
> > there is no salvation. Similarly other denominations claim their own
> > exclusive truth.
>
> Mark, the view that faith and science clash is an ancient one, you know.
> Aquinas defeneded the unity of truth against Averoes the Muslim who
> argued your line.
>
> You're taking up a *religous* view typical of medieval Islam when you
> say "theistic and scientific points of view clas seriously and cannot be
> reconciled". Why?
>
> I've never felt the force your second piont that because religions
> disagree on some things, no one of them is what she claims to be: 100%
> truth. If astrology doesn't discredit science why should <insert your
> favorite fanatical religous group> discredit religion?
===>False analogy.
ALL religions are religion,
but astrology is NOT science!
Libertarius
============
Mark Tindall
>===>False analogy.
>ALL religions are religion,
>but astrology is NOT science!
One should also mention that creationist psuedo-science is not science
either.
Jung tried to treat astrology as a science but failed.
Mark
Oz
Pastor Frank
>Pasta Frank wrote
>
>> Also most atheist commentaries are setting up their own straw
>>man to tear down.
>
>The strawman analogy is a Creationist strawman.
Wrong! The God Christians believe in can never be the god(s) atheists
disbelieve in. The god(s) of atheist definition does indeed not exist.
>Christians should be
>interested in truth but Creationists are onlky interested in backing up
>their narrow anti-intellectual bible theory.
I see. Evolutionsts are NOT interested in backing up their "narrow"
definition of evolution and are ready to admit they know nothing about
abiogenesis nor speciation.
>As a Christian I don't want
>anything to do with their ratbaggery.
>
You forget that creation is basically a philosophical position resting
on the presumption of multiple realities, i.e. earth, heaven, hell etc. If
you want to know more, you need to read up on Maya. Krishna explains the
basics to Arjuna in the Baghavad Gita.
But I can tell you are in fact an atheist with an axe to grind, for you
say Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy is not the last word on the
subject, YET in typical atheist fashion, you conveniently forget to mention
what you DO consider to be the last word on the subject. If you were honest,
you would admit you are not sure whether it is, or is not the last word on
the subject, and not assert you know the truth, though you are not yet
ready to divulge what the "last word is on the subject" to a waiting world,
or tell it to lesser beings like myself. LOL You do have a high opinion of
yourself, don't you?
Come down from up there and meet Jesus, you won't need self-esteem any
longer, for you are God-esteemed beyond measure and can rest your soul in
His love.
Pastor Frank
(Note how the Father which is in heaven calls Jesus "God")
"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and
ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
--Hebrews 1:8
Mark Tindall
>The God Christians believe in can never be the god(s) atheists
>disbelieve in.
Er ... this a philosophy newsgroup, isn't it??? My response to this
nonsensical statement is 'Why?' There are many atheists who clearly reject
the God of the bible that you proclaim and have read the bibole many times.
Michael Goulder (ex-Christian theologian) is one. My brother was another.
You don't know what you are talking about.
> I see. Evolutionsts are NOT interested in backing up their "narrow"
>definition of evolution and are ready to admit they know nothing >about
abiogenesis nor speciation.
Evolutionary theory is wide in viewpoint whereas creation psuedo-science is
merely propaganda to support and unscientific theological belief in ancient
mythology.
> You forget that creation is basically a philosophical position resting
>on the presumption of multiple realities, i.e. earth, heaven, hell etc.
Creation as defined in Genesis is a myth. Creationist theory rests on blind
unphilosophical anti-intellectual belief.
>Baghavad Gita.
I've read it and it isn't what I am talking about above.
> But I can tell you are in fact an atheist with an axe to grind
Au contraire, I am a Christian and have been since 1972 and have travelled
through pentecostalism, evangelicalism and liberalism. I wrote the manual
for setting up Christian Community Schools across Australia. Your assumption
is wrong. Atheists believe in no god whatsoever. I believe in YHWH.
>say Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy is not the last word on the
>subject, YET in typical atheist fashion, you conveniently forget to mention
>what you DO consider to be the last word on the subject.
Er ... again I have to ask whether this newsgroup is on the topic of
philosophy ... What are you on about???? .... Atheists do not act in the way
that you suppose. Do you know any atheists??? Have you talked to one
lately?
There is no last word on any subject. All truth known to people is
subjective.
>If you were honest
I am.
>you would
Would I? Why?
>Come down from up there and meet Jesus
I thought your idea of Jesus was that he was up there in the sky somewhere.
Which part of the universe should I start looking in to find his physcical
body?
What do you mean by the fundy phrase 'meet Jesus'?
>you won't need self-esteem any longer
Then how am I to love my neighbour as myself if I have no self esteem? You
talk nonsense that is not very logical or philosophical. Have you studied
philosophy in any reputable university? My undergraduate degree in
philosophy is from Macqurie Uni, NSW, Oz.
>Pastor Frank
Rev Dr Mark
Believer (... CHRISTIAN ... please note! ...) in Exile
Oz
Adelphos
>Pastor Frank wrote:
>
>>The God Christians believe in can never be the god(s) atheists
>>disbelieve in.
>
>Er ... this a philosophy newsgroup, isn't it??? My response to this
>nonsensical statement is 'Why?' There are many atheists who clearly reject
>the God of the bible that you proclaim and have read the bibole many times.
>Michael Goulder (ex-Christian theologian) is one. My brother was another.
>You don't know what you are talking about.
>
If theologians have any insight about rural religions [Pagans] thriving
in the areas surrounding the cities of the first twelve churches, I'd
greatly appreciate your forwarding it.
<snip>
>> But I can tell you are in fact an atheist with an axe to grind
>
>Au contraire, I am a Christian and have been since 1972 and have travelled
>through pentecostalism, evangelicalism and liberalism. I wrote the manual
>for setting up Christian Community Schools across Australia. Your assumption
>is wrong. Atheists believe in no god whatsoever. I believe in YHWH.
>
Is YHWH the god of war, or the god of love?
Who is Satan?
Who/what does the snake represent in the Eden fable?
Libertarius
> Mark Tindall wrote in message <3cdd...@news.turboweb.net.au>...
> >Pasta Frank wrote
> >
> >> Also most atheist commentaries are setting up their own straw
> >>man to tear down.
> >
> >The strawman analogy is a Creationist strawman.
>
> Wrong! The God Christians believe in can never be the god(s) atheists
> disbelieve in. The god(s) of atheist definition does indeed not exist.
===>You keep making nebulous statements like that.
What is the "ATHEIST" definition?
What is the "Christian" (i.e. YOUR) definition???
Will you ever answer those questions?
Libertarius
Pastor Frank
>Pastor Frank wrote:
>>
>> Read Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy for the evidence.
>
>===>Since when is a man's philosophy considered "evidence"?
>
between the main religions. You are on a track that leads nowhere. Why not
take issue with Jesus and find a new and exciting direction for your life?
Pastor Frank
(Note God talking to Himself in the form of the Son)
Pastor Frank
>Libertarius wrote:
>
>>===>False analogy.
>>ALL religions are religion,
>>but astrology is NOT science!
>
>One should also mention that creationist psuedo-science is not science
>either.
>
exist, for claiming the world was created is NOT a science, but a
philosophical stance. All else are pointed questions regarding evolution
theory, mostly based on probability statistics, which gets evolutionists
true-believers all apoplectic, and stammering incoherent non-sequitur
flames. I have yet to see a serious treatment of evolutionary statistical
improbabilities.
Pastor Frank
Libertarius
> Libertarius wrote in message <3CDDC8A0.5786A936@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
> >Pastor Frank wrote:
> >>
> >> Read Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy for the evidence.
> >
> >===>Since when is a man's philosophy considered "evidence"?
> >
> It ain't a "philosophy" stupid,
===>Poor Sheepherder. Cant you see???
When you write things like that,
or delete people's main points,
or change then subject without responding,
or insisting on you silly exhortation to
"follow Christ" or "be like Jesus",
you are merely reinforcing your image of being
an inadequate mental weakling who stumbled into
a hole you consider your religion.
> it's a compilation of similarities
> between the main religions.
===>Huxley CALLED IT "Philosophy".
I doubt if even he would have considered his book
"evidence" of anything.
Libertarius
> You are on a track that leads nowhere. Why not
> take issue with Jesus
===>Do you know what it means "to take issue with"
someone? Why would you advise anyone to
"take issue with Jesus"???
> and find a new and exciting direction for your life?
===>I already have.
Perhaps you should "take issue with" Fundamentalism
and "find a new and exciting direction for your life",
as I have!
Libertarius
============
Libertarius
> Mark Tindall wrote in message <3cde...@news.turboweb.net.au>...
> >Libertarius wrote:
> >
> >>===>False analogy.
> >>ALL religions are religion,
> >>but astrology is NOT science!
> >
> >One should also mention that creationist psuedo-science is not science
> >either.
> >
> "Creationist pseudo-science" is an Evolutionist invention and doesn't
> exist, for claiming the world was created is NOT a science, but a
> philosophical stance. All else are pointed questions regarding evolution
> theory, mostly based on probability statistics, which gets evolutionists
> true-believers all apoplectic, and stammering incoherent non-sequitur
> flames. I have yet to see a serious treatment of evolutionary statistical
> improbabilities.
===>You have yet to see
beyond your nose. -- L.
Jesse Nowells
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Libertarius wrote:
> > You are on a track that leads nowhere. Why not
> > take issue with Jesus
> ===>Do you know what it means "to take issue with"
> someone? Why would you advise anyone to
> "take issue with Jesus"???
But you're missing the divergent. He doesn't want you to take issue with
his evident contradictions; that's why he wants you to "take issue with"
Jesus. IOW, "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain". Pay
attention instead to the booming voice he projects as he's pulling the
levers of his apparition machine. HIs whole stratagem is an infantalizing
trick.
Mark Tindall
At last some decent questions from this group!!!!!! :-)
>If theologians have any insight about rural religions [Pagans] thriving
>in the areas surrounding the cities of the first twelve churches, I'd
>greatly appreciate your forwarding it.
As an historian John Bright's 'History of Israel' is insightful in its
treatment of pagans in Old Testament times. Particularly useful is how the
bible writers borrowed many items from surrounding nations including pagans.
I recommend Karen Armstrong's 'The History of God' for the rest.
>Is YHWH the god of war, or the god of love?
The concept of YHWH has changed over time and was reworked continualy
throughout the bible. YHWH was first thought of as a tribal deity only in
charge of Israel and very warlike. By the time of Paul in the NT YHWH was
understood to be universal and a god of love by Chrisrtians. So the answer
is both ... at different times in history.
>Who is Satan?
Jung would say 'the shadow of Christ' and a necessity for the existence of
Christ. This brings in the problem of evil nicely stated in Archibald
MacLeish's 'J.B.' If God created everything then God obviously created at
least the possibility for evil. Satan is a Babylonian concept that was
pinched by the OT bible writers.
>Who/what does the snake represent in the Eden fable?
The snake is an ancient symbol of evil. It was later interpreted to be
Satan. Jung would call it an archetype.
Mark
Oz