Atheists Do Believe

[Amos]

They Believe They Should Be Left Alone

It’s high time that Atheists are given the same respect that the religious demand.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/richard-delo/atheists-do-believe-they-believe-they-should-be-left-alone/

Why is it so hard for religious zealots to understand that Atheists are not interested in hearing the reasons they feel we need to be indoctrinated into their belief systems? Why is the concept that we do not have a belief in any supernatural power threatening to them? It's high time that Atheists are given the same respect that the religious demand. The freedom to believe in "nothing" and not be marginalised as a result.

In examining some of the arguments used to attack atheism, one quickly sees misinformation and hypocrisy are the norm. One of the most common is that mankind can only be civil if it is doing so to appease a deity and be rewarded in an afterlife. If this wasn't the case, we would all be murdering and pillaging. This is laughable. Why is it hard to understand that humans should treat each other with respect so that we all have a safe environment in which to live?

In 1958, prominent Psychologist Lawrence Kolhberg developed the six stages of moral development incorporating the previous work of Jean Piaget. The level of morality at which religion functions is within the lowest two levels - how can I avoid punishment and what's in it for me? Basically I'll be good so I don't go to hell and get a heavenly reward. This is like telling your two-year-old to finish dinner or they'll have time out if they don't and will get dessert if they do. This can be a factor in creating a world in which people will only do something if they feel they are getting something personally as a result. It fosters greed and selfishness. This isn't to say every believer is selfish, but it creates the mindset to promote it.

Atheism, in contrast, operates on the two highest levels of moral development in Kohlberg's chart s- social contract orientation and principled conscience. Atheists conduct their lives in a manner that is ethical, not out of fear or reward-seeking but because they are upholding their own principles and have empathy for others. They understand and accept others have varying opinions on most everything. The religious struggle with this concept.

I won't even go into the wars and killings in the name of religion. These are documented daily. But one thing the religious do try is to mislabel politically motivated violence as an assault on themselves. For example, those who died in the Gulags in Stalinist Russia were not incarcerated because of their religious beliefs. The majority may have been Christian, but this was due to the fact the Christianity was the predominate religion in Russia and Eastern Europe at the time. The majority of people sent to the Gulags were charged with conducting class warfare and exploiting groups in a lower social economic segment of society or for speaking out against the government.

Religious believers have other arguments to attempt and dismiss nonbelief. My favourite is if there is no God how could the universe have been created from nothing? The science behind this is probably too advanced for the majority to understand, I certainly do not, but we can easily reverse this question. If God exists and created the universe, then where did God come from? How does this God exist? The hypocrisy in accepting that a God could exist out of nothing, but nothing else could is blatant. There are many more examples I could describe but, really, this isn't a contest to see who can come up with the most examples to defend their position or berate the other.

All Atheists and agnostics want is to be left alone and not have religious believers continually try and force their beliefs on us. Not wanting your religion is not an assault on your religion. If you want to believe, fine, we really do not care. If it helps you through life, that's fine for you. But not us. Individuals and organisations that chose not to participate in your beliefs and traditions need to have their rights respected. Saying 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas' is not a plot to persecute Christians. Quite frankly, this type of hypersensitivity is a turn off to many and is self-defeating.

It would be great if everyone could open their minds to the possibility that there are people who think in a completely different manner than yourself. These people are not a threat to you. They are your neighbours, your doctors and nurses, your teachers and co-workers. Let's allow everyone the right to believe what they feel is best for them and not take their being different as a personal insult.

[e_space]

agree ... but not holding my breath waiting for that to happen

[Bret]

Atheism is inherently evil, that's why.

[Lois Lyons]

> On May 23, 2016, at 6:44 PM, Bret <bretle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Atheism is inherently evil, that's why.

In what way? Is your atheism evil, too--your lack of belief in gods other than your own? It's no different than our atheism. We just believe in one less god than you do. Where's the evil?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Marc James Hugh Robson]

Bret what I your goal here? When you say something like "atheism is inherently evil" how do you think that is helpful to that goal? I hardly ever talk to Christians about this anymore because of claims like this. I do not feel welcome around a group of people who feel what I am is inherently evil... Essentially this claim serves only to drive more atheists away from Christianity rather than towards it. myself included.

It is blind to the path that leads people to atheism, to the fact that most are good people trying to live a good life (however badly). Most actively do good in their daily life. Basically you call my wife, my dying grandmother inherently evil because they are atheist? What exactly do you think that will achieve?

Bring us closer to God or drive us further away? If it is closer you are wrong

[e_space]

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 9:44:20 PM UTC-4, Bret wrote:

 Atheism is inherently evil, that's why.

actually bret, you sound quite evil yourself ... and christianity has a VERY bad reputation in history for the torture and abuse of those who don't believe their rhetoric ... very evil indeed ...

[Bret]

Many people want to accept things that are evil due to modernity. Christianity is counter cultural. There is no such thing as leading a good life as an atheist. An atheist by his very nature cannot lead a good life. He violates what Jesus says is the most important commandment of all loving God with your whole, heart, mind and soul. The second most important is loving your neighbor as yourself. The atheist violates the first command of Jesus and the first and 3rd commandments every day of their life. God is the source of goodness. Without God there is no goodness. That's why if you don't choose God when you die you end up separated from him which is hell. There are plenty of political correct Christians that will lie to you and say an atheist can be a good person but they have little to no grasp on what good means or Christian theology. Now atheists can always change and come to God as long as they are breathing but the idea that an atheist is a good person is categorically false. Now there are degrees, U mean some atheists ridicule God , Jesus , scripture, the faithful ect while others just have trouble believing. I am sure God understands this and provides help for those who seek. Seek and you will find. God however makes it clear due to creation and our own hearts there is no excuse in the long run for the atheist. I have nothing against atheists but the idea that they are not evil is just completely untrue. Satan could not find better allies. I worry about my salvation, I am fearful of hell, I have committed mortal sins missing , church, premarital sex, birth control among others. I sometimes would like to project my views on what God should consider evil but it doesn't work that way.

[Lois Lyons]

> On May 24, 2016, at 9:05 AM, Bret <bretle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Many people want to accept things that are evil due to modernity. Christianity is counter cultural. There is no such thing as leading a good life as an atheist. An atheist by his very nature cannot lead a good life. He violates what Jesus says is the most important commandment of all loving God with your whole, heart, mind and soul. The second most important is loving your neighbor as yourself. The atheist violates the first command of Jesus and the first and 3rd commandments every day of their life. God is the source of goodness. Without God there is no goodness. That's why if you don't choose God when you die you end up separated from him which is hell. There are plenty of political correct Christians that will lie to you and say an atheist can be a good person but they have little to no grasp on what good means or Christian theology. Now atheists can always change and come to God as long as they are breathing but the idea that an atheist is a good person is categorically false. Now there are degrees, U mean some atheists ridicule God , Jesus , scripture, the faithful ect while others just have trouble believing. I am sure God understands this and provides help for those who seek. Seek and you will find. God however makes it clear due to creation and our own hearts there is no excuse in the long run for the atheist. I have nothing against atheists but the idea that they are not evil is just completely untrue. Satan could not find better allies. I worry about my salvation, I am fearful of hell, I have committed mortal sins missing , church, premarital sex, birth control among others.

Oh,no! We're really scared now, and we know that there is only one place for frightened people--christianity.

> I sometimes would like to project my views on what God should consider evil but it doesn't work that way.

That's ok, Bret. Do the world a favor and keep it to yourself, please.

[Bret]

Well thanks for the support espace. Jesus -"whenever they say anything bad about you because of me your reward will be great in heaven." I could use support to get to heaven, I appreciate it.

[Lois Lyons]

> On May 24, 2016, at 10:06 AM, Bret <bretle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well thanks for the support espace. Jesus -"whenever they say anything bad about you because of me your reward will be great in heaven." I could use support to get to heaven, I appreciate it.

You'll need a lot more than our support. If there is a god and a heaven and god appreciates people who use the intellectual abilities he gave them and haven't wasted it believing in fairy tales, you'll never get within a million miles of heaven.

[John Stockwell]

What a bigoted asshole.

[Bret]

Thanks for the support. No I don't support Satanists like yourself. Keep telling yourself you are not evil. Whatever delusion it takes to get you through your godless evil existence.

[Lois Lyons]

> On May 24, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Bret <bretle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the support. No I don't support Satanists like yourself. Keep telling yourself you are not evil. Whatever delusion it takes to get you through your godless evil existence.

Gee, thanks. How very Christian of you.

[Marc James Hugh Robson]

On Tuesday, 24 May 2016 21:12:47 UTC+2, Bret wrote:

 Thanks for the support. No I don't support Satanists like yourself. Keep telling yourself you are not evil. Whatever delusion it takes to get you through your godless evil existence.

You see what happens?

You call an atheist evil... an atheist calls you evil... discussion begins to break down. How is one supposed to seek out your 'loving God' when the starting point is so toxic? So once again I wonder what your goal here is. This does not feel like someone trying to spread the good news, the glad tidings - as Alan tries to. If it is to call people names, it is an internet forum I'm sure you see that it will respond in kind. Eye for an eye style. 

My grandmother will die this year (probably) as a result of old age. She is an atheist, is not going to change her mind now as she no longer has the mental capacity (due to old age) to do so. 

Your position is that she is evil simply because she has never believed in the Christian God. She will go to hell - primarily - for the evil of never having worshiped this 'loving God'. I have love in my love, I love... and the only thing I will say about it. My love does not require worship or obedience; and my forgiving as a result of it does not require someone to through themselves prostrate and proclaim 'I am not worthy'. I do not see this as love; I do not see how anyone else could.

Bret this is not so much about what you believe, or being PC, or whatever; it is about people. Walking in and proclaiming a group evil, wrong, or whatever is not going to put you on good footing with that group. So if you seek to witness to them then your opening gambit is doomed. 

Remember that you could always shake the dust of your sandals and walk away - is this not what is recommended if a community is closed to the message?

I have read Augustine and Aquinas (and many more). I have read the Bible (and still do). I immerse myself in all things Christian and everyday - and in no small part because of words like yours - I find myself a little more convinced of atheism every time.

Not because you are worse than the atheist who loses his/her temper and calls you evil or asshole. Rather it is because you are the same, you claim this belief makes you different - impacts positively on your life - but you are here engaged in mud slinging along with the rest of us. Where is the positivity? I remind you of the option to walk away, an internet forum is not a place many can engage maturely in. All too often in brings out the worst in us and we say things we would not say to one another in person.

I have walked away from this space before.    

[Bret]

I think you are missing my point. There is a movement to say atheism is acceptable, is normal, is another minority group. This is a movement that is deceptive and destructive to faith. Jesus made a case to people that those that are ashamed of his words, he will be ashamed of them on the last day. Jesus was vehemently against atheism. The bible describes atheists as not one of them doing good.
Now you can make an argument that you get more bees with honey than vinegar, that I could convince more atheists to abandon atheism by taking a more conciliatory position. That may be true. There are plenty of Christians that take that approach and I think it's a fine approach. I have never said I am a great Christian, and I certainly do not know scripture as well as many Christians. So those better well versed Christians may indeed be better at spreading Gods word. Every person is made individually by God with certain strengths and weaknesses. Every person was made unique. God knows us well. He knows LL loves science , he knows Mr. Stockwell loves moral relativism . He knows Marc is making an honest attempt to ask questions about God.He knows espace flunked quantum physics. He knows I love maps and geography, that I love Van Halen , Led Zeppelin and Tom Petty and the Heart Breakers. God also knows my approach to unbelievers is unique to me in its own way. My brother is an agnostic ( which is light years better than atheism)and I love my brother with all my heart.People have come to this site because they want to debate what they hold is the truth. People should be honest with others. God gives each and everyone of us so many gifts starting with life. It is so sad when people won't even acknowledge him. Beleif in God is really the most simple basic thank you , one can give to their creator.

[Bret]

I was speaking to Mr. Stockwell not you LL, he called me an asshole so I have pointed out he has an evil existence.

[Lois Lyons]

> On May 24, 2016, at 6:00 PM, Bret <bretle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think you are missing my point. There is a movement to say atheism is acceptable, is normal, is another minority group. This is a movement that is deceptive and destructive to faith.

If your faith is true, nothing could destroy it. That you think atheism could is a good indication that you have serious doubts about the truth of your faith. You're on the right track.

> Jesus made a case to people that those that are ashamed of his words, he will be ashamed of them on the last day. Jesus was vehemently against atheism. The bible describes atheists as not one of them doing good.

Right, and the bible is the only source you accept for anything.

> Now you can make an argument that you get more bees with honey than vinegar, that I could convince more atheists to abandon atheism by taking a more conciliatory position. That may be true.

Don't bother, Bret,

> There are plenty of Christians that take that approach and I think it's a fine approach. I have never said I am a great Christian, and I certainly do not know scripture as well as many Christians. So those better well versed Christians may indeed be better at spreading Gods word. Every person is made individually by God with certain strengths and weaknesses.

Right, and you have proof of that, don't you?

> Every person was made unique. God knows us well. He knows LL loves science , he knows Mr. Stockwell loves moral relativism . He knows Marc is making an honest attempt to ask questions about God.He knows espace flunked quantum physics. He knows I love maps and geography, that I love Van Halen , Led Zeppelin and Tom Petty and the Heart Breakers. God also knows my approach to unbelievers is unique to me in its own way. My brother is an agnostic ( which is light years better than atheism)

Agnosticism has nothing to do with atheism. If you ever got your nose out of the bible, you might know that.

> and I love my brother with all my heart.People have come to this site because they want to debate what they hold is the truth. People should be honest with others.

The atheists here are honest with others. It's the theists who are dishonest.

> God gives each and everyone of us so many gifts starting with life. It is so sad when people won't even acknowledge him.

We'll acknowledge him when you acknowledge Allah or Buddah, or Thor, or Olympus, or any of the other gods I outlined for you.

> Beleif in God is really the most simple basic thank you , one can give to their creator.

If only it were true! If only you could present one grain of evidence that we even have a creator. But you can't. All you can present is more of your indoctrination.

[Lois Lyons]

> On May 24, 2016, at 6:05 PM, Bret <bretle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I was speaking to Mr. Stockwell not you LL, he called me an asshole so I have pointed out he has an evil existence.

Ok.

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 3:05:41 AM UTC+2, Bret wrote:

I was speaking to Mr. Stockwell not you LL, he called me an asshole so I have pointed out he has an evil existence.

Please specify what aspects of his existence are evil. Does he molest six-year-old children, or commit serial murders? What specifically is it about him that is evil?

[e_space]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 12:05:13 PM UTC-4, Bret wrote:

  Many people want to accept things that are evil due to modernity. Christianity is counter cultural. There is no such thing as leading a good life as an atheist. An atheist by his very nature cannot lead a good life. He violates what Jesus says is the most important commandment of all loving God with your whole, heart, mind and soul. The second most important is loving your neighbor as yourself. The atheist violates the first command of Jesus and the first and 3rd commandments every day of their life. God is the source of goodness. Without God there is no goodness. That's why if you don't choose God when you die you end up separated from him which is hell. There are plenty of political correct Christians that will lie to you and say an atheist can be a good person but they have little to no grasp on what good means or Christian theology. Now atheists can always change and come to God as long as they are breathing but the idea that an atheist is a good person is categorically false. Now there are degrees, U mean some atheists ridicule God , Jesus , scripture, the faithful ect while others just have trouble believing. I am sure God understands this and provides help for those who seek. Seek and you will find. God however makes it clear due to creation and our own hearts there is no excuse in the long run for the atheist. I have nothing against atheists but the idea that they are not evil is just completely untrue. Satan could not find better allies. I worry about my salvation, I am fearful of hell, I have committed mortal sins missing , church, premarital sex, birth control among others. I sometimes would like to project my views on what God should consider evil but it doesn't work that way.

you are SO full of bullshit, your posts actually smell ...
 

[e_space]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 1:06:57 PM UTC-4, Bret wrote:

Well thanks for the support espace. Jesus -"whenever they say anything bad about you because of me your reward will be great in heaven." I could use support to get to heaven, I appreciate it.

you need more than support to get to "heaven" ... you seem quite evil yourself ... you will likely be paddling a canoe in hell ... (not that it exists)

[e_space]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 9:05:41 PM UTC-4, Bret wrote:

I was speaking to Mr. Stockwell not you LL, he called me an asshole so I have pointed out he has an evil existence.

why don't you reply to the person you are talking to instead of creating a new post ... btw, you are an asshole and evil ... you actually give christianity a bad name, not that it needs any help ... 

[Bret]

His atheism.

[Bret]

You typify the atheist in all ways. Always angry and upset. You have such anger at God. Unbelievers who are not angry with God treat the believer like back ground music. They wouldn't care. The opposite of love is not hate it is apathy. You have a problem with God and at least for now he sure as hell has a problem with you. Satan on the other hand can't wait to see you. Be careful driving.

[e_space]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 6:55:14 AM UTC-4, Bret wrote:

  You typify the atheist in all ways. Always angry and upset. You have such anger at God. Unbelievers who are not angry with God treat the believer like back ground music. They wouldn't  care. The opposite of love is not hate it is apathy. You have a problem with God and at least for now he sure as hell has a problem with you. Satan on the other hand can't wait to see you. Be careful driving.

no idea who you are blubbering at ... hint: hit the reply button when responding to someone's post ...


your brainwashing is SO thorough that you cannot grasp the simple fact that atheists cannot have anger at "God" because they don't believe in "Him" ... to claim that they do is ludicrous at best ...

regarding your driving comment ... maybe you've hear the story about the nuns who were in florida for a convention ... afterwards, when piling into the bus, they had a community prayer for a safe drive home ... the bus was in a horrific crash that killed many of them ... were they angry at "God" too? ...

btw, you have now overtaken "TRUE CHRISTIAN" as THE most brainwashed "christian" ever to soil this blog ... you are almost as vile as him as well ... christianity already has a very violent history, presumably because it had members such as yourself ... yuckie man ... you are driving people away from your religion ... do you realize that?

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 12:47:38 PM UTC+2, Bret wrote:

His atheism.

You think that not believing in the existence of any deities is evil?

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 4:17:38 PM UTC+5:30, Bret wrote:

His atheism.

Suppose Stockwell takes to believing in Thoth. Would he then not be evil?

[Dingbat]

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 5:49:35 PM UTC+5:30, Amos wrote:

They Believe They Should Be Left Alone

It’s high time that Atheists are given the same respect that the religious demand.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/richard-delo/atheists-do-believe-they-believe-they-should-be-left-alone/

According to this claim, atheists don't demand proof for the existence of gays and global warming but demand proof for God. Go figure!

http://alt.atheism.narkive.com/uwIZo2yu/atheists-free-pass-to-discrimination-against-christians 

[Lois Lyons]

We have objective evidence that gay people exist and that global warming is a true phenomenon. We can observe and test both hypotheses.  

If you can come up with as much evidence for the existence of a god, please present it. 

We expect exactly the same evidence for all claims. Nothing is considered to exist without observable evidence. Your sentence above is gibberish. 

LL

[Bob T.]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 9:05:13 AM UTC-7, Bret wrote:

  Many people want to accept things that are evil due to modernity.

Sure.  The Internet and the smallpox vaccine really fucked things up!

 

Christianity is counter cultural. There is no such thing as leading a good life as an atheist. An atheist by his very nature cannot lead a good life. He violates what Jesus says is the most important commandment of all loving God with your whole, heart, mind and soul. The second most important is loving your neighbor as yourself. The atheist violates the first command of Jesus and the first and 3rd commandments every day of their life. God is the source of goodness. Without God there is no goodness.

Wrong. 

 

That's why if you don't choose God when you die you end up separated from him which is hell.

No, you end up dead, just like the Christian.

 

There are plenty of political correct Christians that will lie to you and say an atheist can be a good person but they have little to no grasp on what good means or Christian theology. Now atheists can always change and come to God as long as they are breathing but the idea that an atheist is a good person is categorically false. Now there are degrees, U mean some atheists ridicule God , Jesus , scripture, the faithful ect while others just have trouble believing. I am sure God understands this and provides help for those who seek. Seek and you will find. God however makes it clear due to creation and our own hearts there is no excuse in the long run for the atheist. I have nothing against atheists but the idea that they are not evil is just completely untrue. Satan could not find better allies. I worry about my salvation, I am fearful of hell, I have committed mortal sins missing , church, premarital sex, birth control among others. I sometimes would like to project my views on what God should consider evil but it doesn't work that way.

Birth control is a mortal sin?  Are you crazy or just Catholic?

- Bob T 

[Bob T.]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 6:00:50 PM UTC-7, Bret wrote:

  I think you are missing my point. There is a movement to say atheism is acceptable, is normal, is another minority group. This is a movement that is deceptive and destructive to faith. Jesus made a case to people that those that are ashamed of his words, he will be ashamed of them on the last day. Jesus was vehemently against atheism. The bible describes atheists as not one of them doing good.

The Bible is bullshit. 

    Now you can make an argument that you get more bees with honey than vinegar,  that I could convince more atheists to abandon atheism by taking a more conciliatory position. That may be true. There are plenty of Christians that take that approach and I think it's a fine approach. I have never said I am a great Christian, and I certainly do not know scripture as well as many Christians. So those better well versed Christians may indeed be better at spreading Gods word. Every person is made individually by God with certain strengths and weaknesses. Every person was made unique. God knows us well. He knows LL loves science , he knows Mr. Stockwell  loves moral relativism . He knows Marc is making an honest attempt to ask questions about God.He knows espace flunked quantum physics. He knows I love maps and geography, that I love Van Halen , Led Zeppelin and Tom Petty and the Heart Breakers. God also knows my approach to unbelievers is unique to me in its own way. My brother is an agnostic ( which is light years better than atheism)and I love my brother with all my heart.People have come to this site because they want to debate what they hold is the truth. People should be honest with others. God gives each and everyone of us so many gifts starting with life. It is so sad when people won't even acknowledge him. Beleif in God is really the most simple basic thank you , one can give to their creator.

Simple, basic, and completely wrong.

- Bob T 

[Alan Wostenberg]

Who believes "we have no objective evidence of God" will choose to believe God exists, or not, on some other basis than evidence.

[Marc James Hugh Robson]

The problem is this:
Claiming that 'throwing yourself prostrate and saying "only by your grace I am worthy" is the only way to forgiveness' makes God sound petty. Note this has nothing to do with human beings per say and everything to do with God. It makes the primary criteria for being good praising an entity... This makes God entirely egotistical. Wherein He judges people worthy of reward based on, what... How much they love Him, and worship Him, and place Him at the center of all life? Whoa! That is some oddly petty behaviour for any purporting to be 'supreme'.

How can something look at itself in the mirror an claim authenticity if its requires such an act of deprecation to itself from others. Especially when those others are supposedly without worth. If some mouse starting to talk and then Said how great I am. So what. I am beyond the mouse in a myriad of ways, what would it say if I defined good for the mouse as being to love me? That says nothing more about the mouse, but a lot about me.

A God worthy of worship would be one pretty about the actions of mice. No the belief makes the mice far to important, it makes the mice into something more than mice. The mice are telling the story of how a God requires their love.

[ravn]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 6:00:50 PM UTC-7, Bret wrote:

  I think you are missing my point. There is a movement to say atheism is acceptable, is normal, is another minority group.

So what? There's no real basis for your beliefs. That's the real problem,  not non-believers. If you can't solve the real problem,  then you offer no real solution here by pushing religion. 

[Alan Wostenberg]

Marc, here is way to think about praise:

“I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation. It is not out of compliment that lovers keep on telling one another how beautiful they are; the delight is incomplete till it is expressed. It is frustrating to have discovered a new author and not to be able to tell anyone how good he is; to come suddenly, at the turn of the road, upon some mountain valley of unexpected grandeur and then to have to keep silent because the people with you care for it no more than for a tin can in the ditch; to hear a good joke and find no one to share it with. . . . The Scotch catechism says that man’s chief end is ‘to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.’ But we shall then know that these are the same thing. Fully to enjoy is to glorify. In commanding us to glorify Him, God is inviting us to enjoy Him." -CS Lewis

[Lois Lyons]

> On May 26, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Who believes "we have no objective evidence of God" will choose to believe God exists, or not, on some other basis than evidence.

No, atheists choose not to believe because no evidence has been presented by the people making the claim that a god exists. It's theists who believe in god with no evidence. You and other theists are incapable of seeing the difference, which is why you would make such an inane statement.

[Alan Wostenberg]

LL, who can find no evidence of X will decide to believe X, or not, on some other basis than evidence.

[ravn]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 2:47:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Marc, here is way to think about praise:

Praise is often flattery.  

“I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment;

That's bullshit too. Not everybody delights in opining about what they enjoy. What you deem completes the experience is often a means of destroying it.

[Marc James Hugh Robson]

What would it say about me if I genetically engineered some mice and in doing so I made it their chief purpose to 'Glorify me'?

Why is the chief way to enjoy God to glorify him. This does nothing to alleviate the problem of pettiness. The Jewish have in their theology often referred to God as Jealous... What would be so great about an entity with this all too human flaw?

Why would I get angry with mice if they built some minor effigy to some fiction? If I did why do get to maintain the position on being all loving?

God sounds all too human, in a bad way.

[Lois Lyons]

Yes, Marc, I agree.

LL

[Lois Lyons]

> On May 26, 2016, at 6:33 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> LL, who can find no evidence of X will decide to believe X, or not, on some other basis than evidence.

Yes, most likely. People do things for no reason at all, then make one up that they think fits the occasion. You're right, no evidence is required. But some of us do require evidence, especially for spectacular, phenomenal things that seem to break all rules of reality. We have to know that our minds play tricks on us sometimes. We need some kind of standard to separate fact from fiction.

[Dingbat]

If they built an effigy to a female mouse, it could give you <nameThatMember> envy:->

[Dingbat]

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 7:03:18 AM UTC+5:30, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

LL, who can find no evidence of X will decide to believe X, or not, on some other basis than evidence.

That implies: When the Church finds no evidence of a miracle, it decides not to believe in a miracle on a basis other than evidence. 

[Bob T.]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 6:33:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

LL, who can find no evidence of X will decide to believe X, or not, on some other basis than evidence.

Wishful thinking, for example.

- Bob T 

[Lois Lyons]

Fantasy for another.

LL

- Bob T 

[ravn]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 11:34:30 PM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote:

If they built an effigy to a female mouse, it could give you <nameThatMember> envy:->

Minnie?  Tail? 

[harry k]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 6:05:41 PM UTC-7, Bret wrote:

I was speaking to Mr. Stockwell not you LL, he called me an asshole so I have pointed out he has an evil existence.

You opened the the thread by calling all atheists evil.  What did you expect?  You got what you deserved and for what it is worth you ARE an asshole.

Harry K 

[yarrido]

Why is it hard to understand that humans should treat each other with respect so that we all have a safe environment in which to live?"

I would be careful about treating a mass-murderer with respect if I were you. That is a dangerous thing to do...it is not safe.

[ravn]

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 2:31:13 PM UTC-7, yarrido wrote:

Why is it hard to understand that humans should treat each other with respect so that we all have a safe environment in which to live?"

I would be careful about treating a mass-murderer with respect if I were you. That is a dangerous thing to do...it is not safe.

So why do you have so much respect for this god-fellow? He's the biggest mass murderer around,  if you buy into this god-fellow actually existing. & anybody can wave their hands in the air about what people should do.  What good is all of that if you don't address the real reasons why they do what they do & a real plan about what they should do as an alternative to all of that?

[Amos]

On Friday, 27 May 2016 22:31:13 UTC+1, yarrido wrote:

Why is it hard to understand that humans should treat each other with respect so that we all have a safe environment in which to live?"

I would be careful about treating a mass-murderer with respect if I were you. That is a dangerous thing to do...it is not safe.

That's right. One should be careful about respecting people who follow a religion that has murdered millions in the name of an imaginary god.

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 12:05:13 PM UTC-4, Bret wrote:

  Many people want to accept things that are evil due to modernity. Christianity is counter cultural. There is no such thing as leading a good life as an atheist. An atheist by his very nature cannot lead a good life. He violates what Jesus says is the most important commandment of all loving God with your whole, heart, mind and soul.

   Show me a Christian that manages that one...I'd like to meet one like that.

 

The second most important is loving your neighbor as yourself.

  Same thing here...show me a Christian that has not failed in this also.

 

The atheist violates the first command of Jesus and the first and 3rd commandments every day of their life. God is the source of goodness. Without God there is no goodness.

  Yes...that is true.

 

That's why if you don't choose God when you die you end up separated from him which is hell.

    Also true.
 

There are plenty of political correct Christians that will lie to you and say an atheist can be a good person but they have little to no grasp on what good means or Christian theology.

   I don't know that it is entirely a lie. Surely atheists just like the rest of us are capable of good. So, why should we ignore the good when we see it. Are we not to hold up tat which is good and of good report? If an atheist does something good, should we call it evil? God forbid.

 

Now atheists can always change and come to God as long as they are breathing but the idea that an atheist is a good person is categorically false.

   Are any of us good apart from the grace of God? Is it not only Jesus that is good and that because he is God? Who among us is good?

 

Now there are degrees, U mean some atheists ridicule God , Jesus , scripture, the faithful ect while others just have trouble believing. I am sure God understands this and provides help for those who seek. Seek and you will find. God however makes it clear due to creation and our own hearts there is no excuse in the long run for the atheist. I have nothing against atheists but the idea that they are not evil is just completely untrue. Satan could not find better allies. I worry about my salvation, I am fearful of hell, I have committed mortal sins missing , church, premarital sex, birth control among others. I sometimes would like to project my views on what God should consider evil but it doesn't work that way.

   No...it doesn't...but the fact of the matter is that we are all sinners and atheists no more so than myself and you. Same need and the same provision for that need. Jesus.

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 12:20:24 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:

> On May 24, 2016, at 9:05 AM, Bret <bretle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   Many people want to accept things that are evil due to modernity. Christianity is counter cultural. There is no such thing as leading a good life as an atheist. An atheist by his very nature cannot lead a good life. He violates what Jesus says is the most important commandment of all loving God with your whole, heart, mind and soul. The second most important is loving your neighbor as yourself. The atheist violates the first command of Jesus and the first and 3rd commandments every day of their life. God is the source of goodness. Without God there is no goodness. That's why if you don't choose God when you die you end up separated from him which is hell. There are plenty of political correct Christians that will lie to you and say an atheist can be a good person but they have little to no grasp on what good means or Christian theology. Now atheists can always change and come to God as long as they are breathing but the idea that an atheist is a good person is categorically false. Now there are degrees, U mean some atheists ridicule God , Jesus , scripture, the faithful ect while others just have trouble believing. I am sure God understands this and provides help for those who seek. Seek and you will find. God however makes it clear due to creation and our own hearts there is no excuse in the long run for the atheist. I have nothing against atheists but the idea that they are not evil is just completely untrue. Satan could not find better allies. I worry about my salvation, I am fearful of hell, I have committed mortal sins missing , church, premarital sex, birth control among others.

Oh,no! We're really scared now, and we know that there is only one place for frightened people--christianity.

> I sometimes would like to project my views on what God should consider evil but it doesn't work that way.

That's ok, Bret. Do the world a favor and keep it to yourself, please.

   He has a right to speak...let him.

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:56:49 PM UTC-4, ravn wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 2:31:13 PM UTC-7, yarrido wrote:

Why is it hard to understand that humans should treat each other with respect so that we all have a safe environment in which to live?"

I would be careful about treating a mass-murderer with respect if I were you. That is a dangerous thing to do...it is not safe.

So why do you have so much respect for this god-fellow? He's the biggest mass murderer around, 

     Well, the charge is that God is a mass murderer. First we have to come to some sort of consensus as to what murder is to start with. I will offer a definition that I suspect you will not like. Murder: "The unjustified or improperly justified taking of an innocent human life." Now, since all have sinned....I know of no individual that has not failed morally and I very much doubt that you do....there is no one innocent and thus for God to take a life as the provider of that lie is properly justified just as it would be properly just for you to take away a gun that you gave your teenage son if he points it at his sister and threatens her with it...thus misusing your gift. Do you find fault with that line of reasoning? Or do you simply find fault with my assertion that there is a God to begin with?

  If the later, you are jumping out of the context of our conversation and thus I will be justified in concluding that within the context the reasoning I offer is sound, but I could be completely wrong and you have no intention of pulling a stunt like that.

 

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 5:46:30 AM UTC-4, e_space wrote:

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 9:44:20 PM UTC-4, Bret wrote:

 Atheism is inherently evil, that's why.

actually bret, you sound quite evil yourself ... and christianity has a VERY bad reputation in history for the torture and abuse of those who don't believe their rhetoric ...

    It also has a reputation for having learned from its mistakes. That is why we no longer have inquisitions. Can the same be said of atheists did Pol Pot regime learn any lessons from the history of Stalinist regime and softened the iron fist?
  It would seem that at least Christianity offers in infrastructure that is self corrective...just like the push to eliminate slavery that had its roots and most ardent supporters in Christianity, not atheism.


 

very evil indeed ...

[ravn]

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 3:36:32 PM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:

... .there is no one innocent and thus for God to take a life as the provider of that lie is properly justified

That is all a  big lie, isn't it? Typo aside,  the lack of innocence in the victims is not a sound justification for the killer to kill.  The killer is not defending against an attack by the victim that threatens the existence of the killer.   The killer justifies the killing because it's a self-appointed right & no one can challenge the killer because the killer has infinite power. But might does not make one right,  does it?  But that's exactly what you're arguing for here.

[Dingbat]

Among enslaved peoples, there were Christians against slavery not just among enslaving peoples but among enslaved peoples too. See Queen Nzinga, a,k,a, Queen Ana below. I'm not sure, however, whether (or to what extent) they influenced views against slavery among enslaving peoples. Be that as it may, do you consider it a possibility that the fact that many, or even most, enslaved people had become Christian influenced other Christians to clamber onto the anti-slavery bandwagon? That is, if all slaves had still been pagan, would the advocates against slavery have enjoyed the same success in getting other Christians to advocate against slavery?

Queen Nzinga Mbande of Ndongo, a.k.a. Queen Ana de Souza

Lived: Angola, 1583–1663
Her question: How can I protect my people?

On-going legacy: Helped spread Christianity to West Africa; by using diplomacy to counter early European colonialism and the slave trade, remains an inspiration to modern African leaders

https://betterworkingworld.ey.com/purpose/what-question-inspired-great-legacies 

 

very evil indeed ...

[Lois Lyons]

On May 30, 2016, at 9:53 PM, 'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:13:25 AM UTC+5:30, yar...@aol.com wrote:

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 5:46:30 AM UTC-4, e_space wrote:

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 9:44:20 PM UTC-4, Bret wrote:

 Atheism is inherently evil, that's why.

actually bret, you sound quite evil yourself ... and christianity has a VERY bad reputation in history for the torture and abuse of those who don't believe their rhetoric ...

 It also has a reputation for having learned from its mistakes. That is why we no longer have inquisitions. Can the same be said of atheists did Pol Pot regime learn any lessons from the history of Stalinist regime and softened the iron fist?
  It would seem that at least Christianity offers in infrastructure that is self corrective...just like the push to eliminate slavery that had its roots and most ardent supporters in Christianity, not atheism.

Among enslaved peoples, there were Christians against slavery not just among enslaving peoples but among enslaved peoples too. See Queen Nzinga, a,k,a, Queen Ana below. I'm not sure, however, whether (or to what extent) they influenced views against slavery among enslaving peoples. Be that as it may, do you consider it a possibility that the fact that many, or even most, enslaved people had become Christian influenced other Christians to clamber onto the anti-slavery bandwagon? That is, if all slaves had still been pagan, would the advocates against slavery have enjoyed the same success in getting other Christians to advocate against slavery?

How long did it take for Christianity to "self-correct" on slavery? How many millennia? 

[e_space]

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 6:36:32 PM UTC-4, yar...@aol.com wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:56:49 PM UTC-4, ravn wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 2:31:13 PM UTC-7, yarrido wrote:

Why is it hard to understand that humans should treat each other with respect so that we all have a safe environment in which to live?"

I would be careful about treating a mass-murderer with respect if I were you. That is a dangerous thing to do...it is not safe.

So why do you have so much respect for this god-fellow? He's the biggest mass murderer around, 

     Well, the charge is that God is a mass murderer. First we have to come to some sort of consensus as to what murder is to start with. I will offer a definition that I suspect you will not like. Murder: "The unjustified or improperly justified taking of an innocent human life." Now, since all have sinned....I know of no individual that has not failed morally and I very much doubt that you do....there is no one innocent and thus for God to take a life as the provider of that lie is properly justified just as it would be properly just for you to take away a gun that you gave your teenage son if he points it at his sister and threatens her with it...thus misusing your gift. Do you find fault with that line of reasoning? Or do you simply find fault with my assertion that there is a God to begin with?

BS ... a child is not born in sin and guess what, NOBODY WHO EVER LIVED was sentenced to burn for eternity in a fiery pit, no matter what their crime was ... but your "benevolent and loving god" will do just that, simply for not believing in "him" ... how horribly pathetic is this 'thing' that you believe in? ... makes me wanna gag ...

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 12:36:32 AM UTC+2, yar...@aol.com wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:56:49 PM UTC-4, ravn wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 2:31:13 PM UTC-7, yarrido wrote:

Why is it hard to understand that humans should treat each other with respect so that we all have a safe environment in which to live?"

I would be careful about treating a mass-murderer with respect if I were you. That is a dangerous thing to do...it is not safe.

So why do you have so much respect for this god-fellow? He's the biggest mass murderer around, 

     Well, the charge is that God is a mass murderer. First we have to come to some sort of consensus as to what murder is to start with. I will offer a definition that I suspect you will not like. Murder: "The unjustified or improperly justified taking of an innocent human life." Now, since all have sinned....I know of no individual that has not failed morally and I very much doubt that you do....there is no one innocent and thus for God to take a life as the provider of that lie is properly justified just as it would be properly just for you to take away a gun that you gave your teenage son if he points it at his sister and threatens her with it...thus misusing your gift. Do you find fault with that line of reasoning? Or do you simply find fault with my assertion that there is a God to begin with?

  If the later, you are jumping out of the context of our conversation and thus I will be justified in concluding that within the context the reasoning I offer is sound, but I could be completely wrong and you have no intention of pulling a stunt like that.

But hang on a moment. First of all you defined murder to be the unjustified or improperly justified taking of an innocent human life, and then after that you said that no-one is innocent, so that gets you to the view that no-one ever commits murder. Surely that's not where you wanted to go. I think you'd better do a bit of revision to your definition of murder or else do more to clarify what is meant by "innocent".

[e_space]

according to christian fundamentalists, the word should not exist, since we are all "born sinners" ... but of course, there are exceptions ... for example, the vatican calls itself "infallible" ... awfully strange then, that they are deeply mired in court cases trying to protect a multitude of child rapists that are on their payroll, but hey, what the hell do i know? 

[Steve in Virginia]

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 9:44:20 PM UTC-4, Bret wrote:

 Atheism is inherently evil, that's why.

Atheist torture and burn people alive because they disagreed with that individuals scientific principles?

How curious!

Steve

[Lois Lyons]

On May 31, 2016, at 9:03 AM, 'Steve in Virginia' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 9:44:20 PM UTC-4, Bret wrote:

 Atheism is inherently evil, that's why.

Atheist torture and burn people alive because they disagreed with that individuals a scientific principles?

How curious!

So well written, too. Nice and grammatical. 

LL

Steve

[Bret]

Well obviously you do not know much. What the hell is the Vatican is infallible ? You are probably talking about the Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility. That is a very misunderstood doctrine especially among morons.But I am not going to mention any names. The pope is only infallible when he makes an excathedra statement. 3 conditions must be met for an excathedra statement 1, the pope must be speaking on the subject of faith and morals, 2 the pope must be addressing the entire Catholic Church community, meaning the over 1 billion Catholics on 6 continents and 3 he must be speaking with the full weight of his apostolic authority, in other words from the chair of Peter. In the last 300 years I think there has been one excathedra statement. These are extremely rare. As the leader of the Catholic Church it is really just confirming Catholic doctrine. Your analysis of the Vatican is ignorant and moronic.

[Rick (rantingrick) Johnson]

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:53:51 AM UTC-5, e_space wrote:
> according to christian fundamentalists, the word should
> not exist, since we are all "born sinners" ... but of
> course, there are exceptions ... for example, the vatican
> calls itself "infallible"

Well of course they do! Just as monarchy have *ALWAYS* been
immune to the laws they create. But even in these "modern
times", and even from within "institutions of democracy", the
political class evade justice on a daily basis. The "rule of law"
just simply does not apply to them.

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 12:46:12 AM UTC+2, Bret wrote:

  Well obviously you do not know much. What the hell is the Vatican is infallible ? You are probably talking about the Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility. That is a very misunderstood doctrine especially among morons.But I am not going to mention any names. The pope is only infallible when he makes an excathedra statement. 3 conditions must be met for an excathedra statement 1, the pope must be speaking on the subject of faith and morals, 2 the pope must be addressing the entire Catholic Church community, meaning the over 1 billion Catholics on 6 continents and 3 he must be speaking with the full weight of his apostolic authority, in other words from the chair of Peter. In the last 300 years I think there has been one excathedra statement. These are extremely rare. As the leader of the Catholic Church it is really just confirming Catholic doctrine. Your analysis of the Vatican is ignorant and moronic.

Yeah, but on the other hand, you'd have to be pretty remarkably stupid to believe in the doctrine of papal infallibility.

[e_space]

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:46:12 PM UTC-4, Bret wrote:

  Well obviously you do not know much. What the hell is the Vatican is infallible ? You are probably talking about the Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility. That is a very misunderstood doctrine especially among morons.But I am not going to mention any names. The pope is only infallible when he makes an excathedra statement. 3 conditions must be met for an excathedra statement 1, the pope must be speaking on the subject of faith and morals, 2 the pope must be addressing the entire Catholic Church community, meaning the over 1 billion Catholics on 6 continents and 3 he must be speaking with the full weight of his apostolic authority, in other words from the chair of Peter. In the last 300 years I think there has been one excathedra statement. These are extremely rare. As the leader of the Catholic Church it is really just confirming Catholic doctrine. Your analysis of the Vatican is ignorant and moronic.

if you're not a moron, i'm glad i am ... you have to be THE most pathetic poster who has ever soiled this blog ... at for your "history" lesson about the vatican ... i really could care less ... they are a corrupt organization with tons of dough in the bank, and sit on it while their converts in africa are starving to death or dying of aids because they won't let them use condoms ... i know one thing for sure, the world would be a better place if your dad used condoms more often ... get it?

[Bret]

It would be hard for my dad to use condoms considering he died in 1989. Birth control is something pushed by atheists like you. I am just glad that here in the USA we have 435 members of congress 0 atheists, 50 governors, 0 atheists, 100 senators 0 atheists 1 President 0 atheists. I am glad you satanic slime will never get into positions of power in this great one nation under God where we get our rights from our creator and where right in the pages of the Constitution it is dated in the year of our Lord. So go back to your basement and play on your computer you mass of insignificant atoms.

[ravn]

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 3:18:53 PM UTC-7, Bret wrote:

 

I am just glad that here in the USA we have 435 members of congress 0 atheists, 50 governors, 0 atheists, 100 senators 0 atheists 1 President 0 atheists.

All those people are cowards, & so are you.

[e_space]

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 6:18:53 PM UTC-4, Bret wrote:

  It would be hard for my dad to use condoms considering he died in 1989.

i meant before he had you ... sorry that flew over your vacuous cranium ...
 

Birth control is something pushed by atheists like you.

i am not an atheist ... and people like you are one of the reasons i'm not a theist ...
 

I am just glad that here in the USA we have 435 members of congress 0 atheists, 50 governors, 0 atheists, 100 senators 0 atheists 1 President 0 atheists. I am glad you satanic slime will never get into positions of power in this great one nation under God where we get our rights from our creator and where right in the pages of the Constitution it is dated in the year of our Lord.

wow ... what a christian thing to say ... you must realize that your ilk drive more people away from you chosen (or inbred) religion than you attract, right? ...

and btw, i live in a great nation ... it's called canada ...
 

[yarrido]

How long did it take for Christianity to "self-correct" on slavery? How many millennia? "

According to atheist propaganda only science self corrects. Fact is that it clearly states in the new testament that in Crist there is no slave. So the correction can be traced back to pretty close to the time Jesus walked the earth. It is the humanity not Christianity of Christians that resulted in support of slavery. Thus your name is misplaced.

When will atheism self correct in offering license to ruthlessness?

[e_space]

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 12:23:39 PM UTC-4, yarrido wrote:

How long did it take for Christianity to "self-correct" on slavery? How many millennia? "

 According to atheist propaganda only science self corrects.

actually, doesn't the bible self correct itself every several decades when people catch on to the obvious bullshit that they are reading? how many translations do you think is required to get it "right" ... let me answer that ... they will never get it right, because its wrong to begin with ...
 

Fact is that it clearly states in the new testament that in Crist there is no slave. So the correction can be traced back to pretty close to the time Jesus walked the earth. It is the humanity not Christianity of Christians that resulted in support of slavery. Thus your name is misplaced.

  When will atheism self correct in offering license to ruthlessness?

nothing worse than a rampaging and ruthless christian ... history is full of the horror of their activities ... 

[Lois Lyons]

> On Jun 2, 2016, at 9:23 AM, yarrido <lkuhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How long did it take for Christianity to "self-correct" on slavery? How many millennia? "
>
> According to atheist propaganda only science self corrects. Fact is that it clearly states in the new testament that in Crist there is no slave.

I'm sure the slaves from throughout history will be glad to hear that--including all the sexual slaves now and throughout history.

> So the correction can be traced back to pretty close to the time Jesus walked the earth. It is the humanity not Christianity of Christians that resulted in support of slavery. Thus your name is misplaced.

The bible supports slavery. Are you denying the bible? There was slavery in Jesus' time yet he is never quoted as saying a word against it. Why is that?

>
> When will atheism self correct in offering license to ruthlessness?

Atheism can't do anything. It's a lack of belief in gods. When will YOUR atheism toward all other gods but the one you accept self correct in offering license to ruthlessness or anything else?

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-4, e_space wrote:

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 12:23:39 PM UTC-4, yarrido wrote:

How long did it take for Christianity to "self-correct" on slavery? How many millennia? "

 According to atheist propaganda only science self corrects.

actually, doesn't the bible self correct itself every several decades when people catch on to the obvious bullshit that they are reading?

   Not exactly the case. It is just that more and more of the old manuscripts have been discovered that shed light on what were sometimes small and theologically insignificant differences.
 

how many translations do you think is required to get it "right" ... let me answer that ... they will never get it right, because its wrong to begin with ...

   Well there is little disagreement in the area as to content of the originals as it pertains to that which the manuscripts affirm. So, we have it right.

 

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-4, e_space wrote:

Fact is that it clearly states in the new testament that in Crist there is no slave. So the correction can be traced back to pretty close to the time Jesus walked the earth. It is the humanity not Christianity of Christians that resulted in support of slavery. Thus your name is misplaced.

  When will atheism self correct in offering license to ruthlessness?

nothing worse than a rampaging and ruthless christian ... history is full of the horror of their activities ... 

   Not as much blood has been spilled from Christian ruthlessness, which is not something tolerated by the teachings of the scriptures, as the ruthlessness of  atheism that actually does grant license to the ruthless that obtain absolute power over others. It is not surprising that atheists should be in practice seeking to compete with Christianity's darker past and outdoing it in the process. After all, ruthless power is an obsession that seems to run deep in the atheist circles.

[ravn]

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 9:23:39 AM UTC-7, yarrido wrote:

 Fact is that it clearly states in the new testament that in Crist there is no slave.

This,  from the guy who offered advice as to how slaves should treat masters, & masters, slaves, all to enslave them both in his delusions of grandeur,  each equally marks,  from the point of view of a cult of personality.

[Lois Lyons]

On Jun 4, 2016, at 9:26 AM, 'yar...@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Not exactly the case. It is just that more and more of the old manuscripts have been discovered that shed light on what were sometimes small and theologically insignificant differences.

Old manuscripts are not the only reason believers have corrected their beliefs. After 500 years most believers  allowed as how maybe the sun doesn't revolve around the earth and can't be stopped in the sky, though there are still those who believe there is a miraculous "explanation" for the apparent contradiction. SOME believers actually used common sense to reinterpret the bible and no old manuscripts were needed.

"Some of the Major Questions Faced in Biblical Interpretation:

1. which books belong in the canon 
2. the transmission of these books from the time of writing to the present
3. the meaning of a text to its writers and first hearers
4. the time when a biblical book was written and its historical context
5. how to translate the Bible into modern languages 
6. the dating of biblical books and of the documents some of them contain
7. problems of relating the chronology and history in the Bible with records from other ancient civilizations
8. problems of scientific accuracy
9. problems of immoral actions condoned and offensive laws set out
10. problems of the discontinuities, not to mention outright contradictions within the Bible itself

"Many of these problems are not new perceptions of the past two hundred years; rather, they have always existed. For example, the problem of the accurate transmission of the actual text of a biblical book began the morning after the first scribe had a go at copying it out, probably about 1000 B.C.E. Before the New Testament was written, Jewish scholars faced many of these problems, and in the Christian Church of the first centuries, Origen (c.185-c.254) struggled with the issues of text, Jerome (c. 342-420) with the matter of translation, and Augustine (354-430) with all the improbable and worrying passages of the Old Testament. Even secular scholars got into the act, for Porphyry (c.233-301) demonstrated that the book of Daniel was written several hundred years after its nominal date."

A good  article, incidentally, for those whose minds have not been permanently sealed shut and made dysfunctional by religious indoctrination. 

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Sandys-Wunsch_History_Biblical_Interp.shtml

[ravn]

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 9:39:36 AM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:

   Not as much blood has been spilled from Christian ruthlessness,

That's not a categorical denial that there is Christian ruthlessness,  & your pissing match over who is more ruthless is a part of it. Anybody can see that ruthlessness is not a foreign concept in either testament. So, there's no use of you denying that. & it's hilarious that you object to atheist others allegedly seeking absolute power over others when that's a projection of your own agenda. You're not exactly reflecting a live & let live attitude here, after all.

[Lois Lyons]

Give us some examples of atheist ruthlessness. 

LL

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 10:31:39 PM UTC-4, ravn wrote:

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 3:36:32 PM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:

... .there is no one innocent and thus for God to take a life as the provider of that lie is properly justified

That is all a  big lie, isn't it? Typo aside,  the lack of innocence in the victims is not a sound justification for the killer to kill. 

    You are right in a sense.....but only up to a point. If a person is guilty of mass murder the government is justified in taking that individual's life and it is precisely because the individual in question lacks innocence. In my example the killer is the state executioner that is carrying out the dictates of the law. Now is it the case that an individual may take the same kind of action should he find out where this mass murderer lives? Nope. There are certain prerogatives specific to governmental bodies that do not belong to individuals and that is because the government or the legal branch of the government has the prerogative to act in this way as it has the appropriate authority to take such actions...the individual does not. There are of course exceptions to that and that is when an individual's life is threatened by the culprit  and takes him out...out of self defense. However, even in the case of self defense the individual defending his life with lethal force is also justified by the lack of innocence of attempted murder on him. So, I think that  your position is really wrongheaded in its whole cloth.

 

The killer is not defending against an attack by the victim that threatens the existence of the killer.   The killer justifies the killing because it's a self-appointed right & no one can challenge the killer because the killer has infinite power.

  Of course now we shift to the example of God. To God who can raise the dead...what is killing? Is it the same thing as it is to us who cannot do the same? What is life to a being that can bring it back at will after someone has physically died? What is physical death to such a being that possesses no physical body? Well a similar example would be what is the breakdown of an engine to a master mechanic? It can easily be fixed with the right parts and tools. The death of an engine is not permanent and the physical death of a human being also lacks permanence. To that extent my analogy runs in parallel. In both examples...the death of an engine and the physical death of a human being perceived from certain perspectives is no big deal. A minor inconvenience at worst. I realize that you do not share this view of a human life as you think that the physical is all there is and thus...when one dies physically...that's the end of it. It's final. You also humanize god in your thinking of him. That is to say that you think that god's prerogative should fit a human mold. He should be on our level when it comes to what he is justified in doing and what not and that his reasons should be the same as ours. But in another example....if I come over to your house and take your car for a joyride....I am sure that you would be quick to report it stolen and seek to have me arrested for stealing your car. That is because it is not my prerogative to take your car and treat it as my own and thus do what I want with it. On the other hand, you, as its owner, have every right to drive it where you wish....our two prerogatives differ in that regard. I can't call the cops and report that you are driving your car and thus should be arrested simply because I would be if I took the same liberty with the same car. How does this tie in with the taking of life when man does it and when god does it? Well, god, as the author of life, is the owner of all life and the fact that any of us enjoy it is simply evidence of his supererogatory nature of goodness. He was under no obligation to either grant us life or indeed is under no obligation not to take back what is his. The same cannot be said of any of us. It is not our prerogative to take someone else's life as we are not its rightful owners...we are not the author of life and thus it is inappropriate for us, under certain circumstances, to take the life of those who are guiltless of any kind of capital offense or other offenses that could justify the taking of a life.

   There is a vast difference between God the creator and sustainer of all life to take what is his, but quite another for us to rob God of what is rightfully his.
 

[Lois Lyons]

Apparently, you don't think the god you believe in has the power or sense to get rid of mass murderers himself but must depend on humans to do his dirty work. 

Incidentally, who created mass murderers? 

--

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 2:16:18 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:

Apparently, you don't think the god you believe in has the power or sense to get rid of mass murderers himself but must depend on humans to do his dirty work. 

   I don't know why you would consider getting rid of mass murderers as "dirty work". Would killing Stalin or Hitler be dirty work? I should think it is more along the lines of cleaning up our own mess. You know....like you telling your kids they should clean their room.


However, you do present an interesting and perhaps important point. The two wills of God. There is his sovereign will, which he accomplishes and there is his moral will that we, human beings, are meant to accomplish. Since it is God's moral will that governments should be rewarders of those who do good and punishers of those who do evil. Romans 13:4 states that....but I suppose you won't be reading that since you have shown a certain lack of interest in other publications that you don't agree with. Yet, in spite of this willful ignorance, you do insist that you know better than those who are better read than yourself. Odd that.

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Lois Lyons]

On Jun 4, 2016, at 11:37 AM, 'yar...@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 2:16:18 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:

Apparently, you don't think the god you believe in has the power or sense to get rid of mass murderers himself but must depend on humans to do his dirty work. 

   I don't know why you would consider getting rid of mass murderers as "dirty work". Would killing Stalin or Hitler be dirty work? I should think it is more along the lines of cleaning up our own mess. You know....like you telling your kids they should clean their room.


However, you do present an interesting and perhaps important point. The two wills of God. There is his sovereign will, which he accomplishes and there is his moral will that we, human beings, are meant to accomplish. Since it is God's moral will that governments should be rewarders of those who do good and punishers of those who do evil. Romans 13:4 states that....but I suppose you won't be reading that since you have shown a certain lack of interest in other publications that you don't agree with. Yet, in spite of this willful ignorance, you do insist that you know better than those who are better read than yourself. Odd that.

Well, that leaves you out, which isn't odd at all.

 You also didn't answer my second question. All out of spit and vinegar? 

 

Incidentally, who created mass murderers? 

On Jun 4, 2016, at 11:12 AM, 'yar...@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 10:31:39 PM UTC-4, ravn wrote:

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 3:36:32 PM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:

... .there is no one innocent and thus for God to take a life as the provider of that lie is properly justified

That is all a  big lie, isn't it? Typo aside,  the lack of innocence in the victims is not a sound justification for the killer to kill. 

    You are right in a sense.....but only up to a point. If a person is guilty of mass murder the government is justified in taking that individual's life and it is precisely because the individual in question lacks innocence. In my example the killer is the state executioner that is carrying out the dictates of the law. Now is it the case that an individual may take the same kind of action should he find out where this mass murderer lives? Nope. There are certain prerogatives specific to governmental bodies that do not belong to individuals and that is because the government or the legal branch of the government has the prerogative to act in this way as it has the appropriate authority to take such actions...the individual does not. There are of course exceptions to that and that is when an individual's life is threatened by the culprit  and takes him out...out of self defense. However, even in the case of self defense the individual defending his life with lethal force is also justified by the lack of innocence of attempted murder on him. So, I think that  your position is really wrongheaded in its whole cloth.

 

The killer is not defending against an attack by the victim that threatens the existence of the killer.   The killer justifies the killing because it's a self-appointed right & no one can challenge the killer because the killer has infinite power.

  Of course now we shift to the example of God. To God who can raise the dead...what is killing? Is it the same thing as it is to us who cannot do the same? What is life to a being that can bring it back at will after someone has physically died? What is physical death to such a being that possesses no physical body? Well a similar example would be what is the breakdown of an engine to a master mechanic? It can easily be fixed with the right parts and tools. The death of an engine is not permanent and the physical death of a human being also lacks permanence. To that extent my analogy runs in parallel. In both examples...the death of an engine and the physical death of a human being perceived from certain perspectives is no big deal. A minor inconvenience at worst. I realize that you do not share this view of a human life as you think that the physical is all there is and thus...when one dies physically...that's the end of it. It's final. You also humanize god in your thinking of him. That is to say that you think that god's prerogative should fit a human mold. He should be on our level when it comes to what he is justified in doing and what not and that his reasons should be the same as ours. But in another example....if I come over to your house and take your car for a joyride....I am sure that you would be quick to report it stolen and seek to have me arrested for stealing your car. That is because it is not my prerogative to take your car and treat it as my own and thus do what I want with it. On the other hand, you, as its owner, have every right to drive it where you wish....our two prerogatives differ in that regard. I can't call the cops and report that you are driving your car and thus should be arrested simply because I would be if I took the same liberty with the same car. How does this tie in with the taking of life when man does it and when god does it? Well, god, as the author of life, is the owner of all life and the fact that any of us enjoy it is simply evidence of his supererogatory nature of goodness. He was under no obligation to either grant us life or indeed is under no obligation not to take back what is his. The same cannot be said of any of us. It is not our prerogative to take someone else's life as we are not its rightful owners...we are not the author of life and thus it is inappropriate for us, under certain circumstances, to take the life of those who are guiltless of any kind of capital offense or other offenses that could justify the taking of a life.

   There is a vast difference between God the creator and sustainer of all life to take what is his, but quite another for us to rob God of what is rightfully his.
 

But might does not make one right,  does it?  But that's exactly what you're arguing for here.

   

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 2:42:02 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:

On Jun 4, 2016, at 11:37 AM, 'yar...@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 2:16:18 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:

Apparently, you don't think the god you believe in has the power or sense to get rid of mass murderers himself but must depend on humans to do his dirty work. 

   I don't know why you would consider getting rid of mass murderers as "dirty work". Would killing Stalin or Hitler be dirty work? I should think it is more along the lines of cleaning up our own mess. You know....like you telling your kids they should clean their room.


However, you do present an interesting and perhaps important point. The two wills of God. There is his sovereign will, which he accomplishes and there is his moral will that we, human beings, are meant to accomplish. Since it is God's moral will that governments should be rewarders of those who do good and punishers of those who do evil. Romans 13:4 states that....but I suppose you won't be reading that since you have shown a certain lack of interest in other publications that you don't agree with. Yet, in spite of this willful ignorance, you do insist that you know better than those who are better read than yourself. Odd that.

Well, that leaves you out, which isn't odd at all.

 You also didn't answer my second question. All out of spit and vinegar? 

    Not at all. If you wish for me to answer your second question...I would be happy to do so. There is no belligerence on my part...I assure you. You did throw me a bit with your polite version of the expression though. :) Not to mention that I haven't heard that expression for a very long time...I guess that dates both of us a bit. :)

   At any rate, who created mass murderers? Sure wasn't God...Adam and Eve weren't mass murderers. Fact is the first murder did not occur in the garden, but happened after the expulsion from it for rebellion against God's rule. That's the problem. The further away one moves away from God, the less his influence of goodness will be felt in your life and the result can be that of mass murder.  God did not command...."Thou shalt murder."....on the contrary, he forbade it.

[Lois Lyons]

So it all unfolded that way against god's will?  I guess that counts as an explanation. 

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 2:57:33 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:

On Jun 4, 2016, at 11:54 AM, 'yar...@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 2:42:02 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:

On Jun 4, 2016, at 11:37 AM, 'yar...@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 2:16:18 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:

Apparently, you don't think the god you believe in has the power or sense to get rid of mass murderers himself but must depend on humans to do his dirty work. 

   I don't know why you would consider getting rid of mass murderers as "dirty work". Would killing Stalin or Hitler be dirty work? I should think it is more along the lines of cleaning up our own mess. You know....like you telling your kids they should clean their room.


However, you do present an interesting and perhaps important point. The two wills of God. There is his sovereign will, which he accomplishes and there is his moral will that we, human beings, are meant to accomplish. Since it is God's moral will that governments should be rewarders of those who do good and punishers of those who do evil. Romans 13:4 states that....but I suppose you won't be reading that since you have shown a certain lack of interest in other publications that you don't agree with. Yet, in spite of this willful ignorance, you do insist that you know better than those who are better read than yourself. Odd that.

Well, that leaves you out, which isn't odd at all.

 You also didn't answer my second question. All out of spit and vinegar? 

    Not at all. If you wish for me to answer your second question...I would be happy to do so. There is no belligerence on my part...I assure you. You did throw me a bit with your polite version of the expression though. :) Not to mention that I haven't heard that expression for a very long time...I guess that dates both of us a bit. :)

   At any rate, who created mass murderers? Sure wasn't God...Adam and Eve weren't mass murderers. Fact is the first murder did not occur in the garden, but happened after the expulsion from it for rebellion against God's rule. That's the problem. The further away one moves away from God, the less his influence of goodness will be felt in your life and the result can be that of mass murder.  God did not command...."Thou shalt murder."....on the contrary, he forbade it.

So it all unfolded that way against god's will?  

   The answer is kind of complicated. Free moral agents can indeed act against God's moral will...which is what God wants for free moral agents to do...you know...like love each other and not murder each other. But that does not mean that God's sovereign will shall not be accomplished in spite of the free will actions of men. While God does not approve of our rebellion against his laws and his rule, he allows it for a time in order that some may turn to his solution to this problem.

 

I guess that counts as an explanation. 

   Well, as far as your question required an explanation it does, but there is more to the story.

[Lois Lyons]

> On Jun 4, 2016, at 12:34 PM, 'yar...@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Well, as far as your question required an explanation it does, but there is more to the story.

A bad or irrational explanation is no better than no explanation at all.

[ravn]

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 11:12:26 AM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:

    If a person is guilty of mass murder the government is justified in taking that individual's life

Not necessarily. & only a government-led,  or some other organized effort like it is capable of genocide. A lack of innocence is not an unquestionable justification for the death penalty, or any punishment. That's just an arbitrary choice made to deal with offenses. 

 

[ravn]

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 11:12:26 AM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:

 [I]n the case of self defense the individual defending his life with lethal force is also justified by the lack of innocence of attempted murder on him. So, I think that  your position is really wrongheaded in its whole cloth.

Self-defense doesn't have anything to do with dispensing justice AND/OR punishing on the attacker. It's kill or be killed. The attacker may be justified in attacking you. You're searching for some absolute that just doesn't exist. 

So,  god is not threatened in anyway by the actions of his creatures. It's his creatures that are threatened by god who arbitrarily has decided to sit in judgement of them. The need for god to do this isn't self-evident, though. It's based on your particular theology. You can play this game of setting up an absolute omnipotent authority for  the weaker party to rebel  against,  chastise the weaker party for being the weaker party,  & totally ignore the valid reasons why the weaker party has good reason to object ad infinitum.  

[yarrido@aol.com]

   I don't know if that is true as an irrational explanation at least tells us where the individual made the logical mistake. Silence tells us nothing. 

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 5:00:52 PM UTC-4, ravn wrote:

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 11:12:26 AM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:

 [I]n the case of self defense the individual defending his life with lethal force is also justified by the lack of innocence of attempted murder on him. So, I think that  your position is really wrongheaded in its whole cloth.

Self-defense doesn't have anything to do with dispensing justice AND/OR punishing on the attacker. It's kill or be killed.

    The two are not mutually exclusive. Even our legal system recognizes this in letting the one who defends his own life with lethal force go scot-free. The legal system sees it as a just killing by not throwing the would-be victim into prison. Thus, what you offer is more wrong-headed thinking that does nothing to repair the previous.

 

The attacker may be justified in attacking you. You're searching for some absolute that just doesn't exist. 

   If you are not the aggressor, he does not and in the case of self defense...well, that is the very definition of self defense. So, the only way that your argument could be sustained is if you stray from the definition of self defense, in which case you have completely changed the scenario and thus a different standard of justice applies.
 

What you are doing is injecting subjectivism inappropriately in order to subvert an objective situation into the mold you like. Reality is not about getting what we like. One cannot be a spoiled brat when it comes to reality. You take what you get in that.

[yarrido@aol.com]

   How can you call it arbitrary when there are different levels of murder in the justice system. Not all murder is treated the same in the judicial system. It is tied to the level of egregiousness of the murder in question. That is why we have involuntary manslaughter, first and second degree murders...etc. Not all forms of murder call for the death penalty, but when it comes to mass murder...that kind of sits at the top of the egregiousness pyramid and certainly demands the perp relinquish his life. It is the even handed application of life for a life...or in this case....a life for many lives.

 

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 7:13:25 AM UTC-4, Rupert wrote:

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 12:36:32 AM UTC+2, yar...@aol.com wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:56:49 PM UTC-4, ravn wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 2:31:13 PM UTC-7, yarrido wrote:

Why is it hard to understand that humans should treat each other with respect so that we all have a safe environment in which to live?"

I would be careful about treating a mass-murderer with respect if I were you. That is a dangerous thing to do...it is not safe.

So why do you have so much respect for this god-fellow? He's the biggest mass murderer around, 

     Well, the charge is that God is a mass murderer. First we have to come to some sort of consensus as to what murder is to start with. I will offer a definition that I suspect you will not like. Murder: "The unjustified or improperly justified taking of an innocent human life." Now, since all have sinned....I know of no individual that has not failed morally and I very much doubt that you do....there is no one innocent and thus for God to take a life as the provider of that lie is properly justified just as it would be properly just for you to take away a gun that you gave your teenage son if he points it at his sister and threatens her with it...thus misusing your gift. Do you find fault with that line of reasoning? Or do you simply find fault with my assertion that there is a God to begin with?

  If the later, you are jumping out of the context of our conversation and thus I will be justified in concluding that within the context the reasoning I offer is sound, but I could be completely wrong and you have no intention of pulling a stunt like that.

But hang on a moment. First of all you defined murder to be the unjustified or improperly justified taking of an innocent human life, and then after that you said that no-one is innocent, so that gets you to the view that no-one ever commits murder.

   One has no right to take another's life without proper justification...on the human level. What is that proper justification...well, we have certainly come to that conclusion in our legal system and have a category that calls for capital punishment. But that is the prerogative of the legal system after due process of the law. On a personal level, one is only justified in taking lethal action in the defense of one's life. He is not justified in being judge, jury, and executioner and that is even if it is the case that if the individual went through the legal process would be found guilty of a capital crime and thus eligible for state execution.

   That is a summary of the way this works on a human level.


 

Surely that's not where you wanted to go. I think you'd better do a bit of revision to your definition of murder or else do more to clarify what is meant by "innocent".

  You are right to question the precision of my previous statements and I hope that the above clarification will help in that...but I have omitted the other point that I think I should also answer.

It has to do with what constitutes innocence in God's court...where the standard of innocence is higher as God has higher standards than we do. That fact makes it a completely different legal structure from ours in terms of egregiousness of a crime.  A crime committed against a lesser being should garner a lesser penalty. But a crime committed against the ultimate being should call for the ultimate penalty. When we chuck someone into prison for murder for life, we ruin him for the law abiding society that we have determined he is not fit for. He can no longer be a part of it, participate in it or contribute or take from it. He is ruined for that for the rest of his life. It is quite clear that all of us were made to live within law abiding societies and thus anyone removed from that is ruined for that which he is made by being thrown into prison. From the perspective of God's justice, mankind has been made for friendship with God. When he elects to reject that friendship or even acknowledge the existence of God he states clearly by his words and actions that he wishes to have nothing to do with him. In this life, he cannot ever attain his full human potential if he does that...though he still enjoys the grace of God that continues to gift him with pleasures and joys in this life...though God is under no obligation to do so. However, such an individual that has been in a lifelong rebellion against God and his kingdom, cannot rightly claim any place in it in the next life. He has made the choice of rejecting God's friendship and in the next life, God grants him that which he chose for his eternal state. He is completely separated from God and all goodness, of which God is the source. Now if man was made for friendship with God and is then removed from his presence forever, he is utterly ruined for the purpose he was made and thus the torment. A ruined person is in agony because  he is ruined and removed from all that God had provided in this life and could, in addition to that, provide in the next. It is not that God tortures anyone in hell, it is simply that his withdrawal, according to the lifetime expression of the wishes of the individual, from that individual results in agony...but withdrawing is actually an expression of honoring the individual by honoring his lifelong wish to be rid of  God and his imposition of moreal demands on him and his life.

   The direction of your life leads you to one of two places, but the path that you choose is yours and the destination of that path is sure. That is why Jesus said that he is the way the truth and the life, no man comes unto the Father but by him. Chose him or chose another path...but your choice of direction will determine your eternal destiny.

[yarrido@aol.com]

Well, in some ways it is...at least some of it has learned its lesson....the hard way:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/330/university-toronto-dumps-transgender-bathrooms-pardes-seleh

[Lois Lyons]

On Jun 5, 2016, at 9:39 AM, 'yar...@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Self-defense doesn't have anything to do with dispensing justice AND/OR punishing on the attacker. It's kill or be killed.

    The two are not mutually exclusive. Even our legal system recognizes this in letting the one who defends his own life with lethal force go scot-free. The legal system sees it as a just killing by not throwing the would-be victim into prison. Thus, what you offer is more wrong-headed thinking that does nothing to repair the previous.

 

The attacker may be justified in attacking you. You're searching for some absolute that just doesn't exist. 

   If you are not the aggressor, he does not and in the case of self defense...well, that is the very definition of self defense. So, the only way that your argument could be sustained is if you stray from the definition of self defense, in which case you have completely changed the scenario and thus a different standard of justice applies.
 

What you are doing is injecting subjectivism inappropriately in order to subvert an objective situation into the mold you like. Reality is not about getting what we like. One cannot be a spoiled brat when it comes to reality. You take what you get in that.

How do civilized countries manage to survive without the death penalty?  The United States stands with such countries as the following. Nice company! Why can't the US, as opposed to all of the other civilized countries, manage its justice system without killing its own people? What is wrong with the United States? One would think the leading world power would be able to dispense with such a barbaric practice, yet we stand with the worst of the worst plus a few banana republics. 

Death Penalty Permitted

Afghanistan Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belize Botswana Chad China (People's Republic) Comoros Congo (Democratic Republic) Cuba Dominica Egypt Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Gambia Guatemala Guinea Guyana India Indonesia Iran Iraq Jamaica Japan Jordan Kuwait Lebanon

Lesotho Libya Malaysia Nigeria North Korea Oman Pakistan Palestinian Authority Qatar St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Saudi Arabia Singapore Somalia South Sudan Sudan Syria Taiwan Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Uganda United Arab Emirates United States Vietnam Yemen Zimbabwe

[ravn]

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 9:39:29 AM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:

Even our legal system recognizes this in letting the one who defends his own life with lethal force go scot-free.

Not necessarily. You can't justify excessive force in self-defense. You can end up getting charged with manslaughter or worse.  Your incipient cowboy vigilantism is a recipe for disaster.
 
 

The attacker may be justified in attacking you. You're searching for some absolute that just doesn't exist. 

   If you are not the aggressor, he does not

Didn't the Croatians feel  *justified* in ousting their heretofore Serbian neighbors?  Didn't those Serbs have a reason to defend themselves given that they were being subjected to ethnic cleansing? (What? Too soon?) 


 

[Timbo]

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 11:30:43 PM UTC-4, ravn wrote:

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 9:39:29 AM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:

Even our legal system recognizes this in letting the one who defends his own life with lethal force go scot-free.

Not necessarily. You can't justify excessive force in self-defense. You can end up getting charged with manslaughter or worse.  Your incipient cowboy vigilantism is a recipe for disaster.

That does not hold up either. If a world leader has control of both trade and military power, a Dick Cheney and a Donald Rumsfeld can escape charges of manslaughter after completing their acts of Christian cowboy vigilantism. Neither of the two Christian fiends can travel abroad without being arrested. Yet, the U.S. superiority of markets and military power stops the world from punishing these destructive fiends.

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 6:44:16 AM UTC-4, Amos wrote:

On Friday, 27 May 2016 22:31:13 UTC+1, yarrido wrote:

Why is it hard to understand that humans should treat each other with respect so that we all have a safe environment in which to live?"

I would be careful about treating a mass-murderer with respect if I were you. That is a dangerous thing to do...it is not safe.

That's right. One should be careful about respecting people who follow a religion that has murdered millions in the name of an imaginary god.

   That is why Christians are trying to convert the Muslims out of that.

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 2:04:01 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:

On Jun 5, 2016, at 9:39 AM, 'yar...@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Self-defense doesn't have anything to do with dispensing justice AND/OR punishing on the attacker. It's kill or be killed.

    The two are not mutually exclusive. Even our legal system recognizes this in letting the one who defends his own life with lethal force go scot-free. The legal system sees it as a just killing by not throwing the would-be victim into prison. Thus, what you offer is more wrong-headed thinking that does nothing to repair the previous.

 

The attacker may be justified in attacking you. You're searching for some absolute that just doesn't exist. 

   If you are not the aggressor, he does not and in the case of self defense...well, that is the very definition of self defense. So, the only way that your argument could be sustained is if you stray from the definition of self defense, in which case you have completely changed the scenario and thus a different standard of justice applies.
 

What you are doing is injecting subjectivism inappropriately in order to subvert an objective situation into the mold you like. Reality is not about getting what we like. One cannot be a spoiled brat when it comes to reality. You take what you get in that.

How do civilized countries manage to survive without the death penalty?  The United States stands with such countries as the following. Nice company! Why can't the US, as opposed to all of the other civilized countries, manage its justice system without killing its own people? What is wrong with the United States? One would think the leading world power would be able to dispense with such a barbaric practice, yet we stand with the worst of the worst plus a few banana republics. 

    First of all, a lot of countries that America brown-noses are the very countries that spit out ISIS members. American leadership should have higher standards as to who they call their friends. The foreign policy needs a major overhaul in that those countries that support or fail to do anything about stamping out terrorists in their midst should not receive American foreign aid. The madrasas that exist within those countries should be closed down and sharia no longer taught to the population...if they refuse to do so, they are not our friends and we should not be supporting them. No money, no arms...I wouldn't even give them a MCDonalds. In addition, we should pool some of our finest minds to start another Manhattan Project for alternate energy.  That way USA can become energy independent of the middle east and in so doing, cut out the finances that have been fueling these terrorist groups. It would seem that none of the politicians in Washington can see clearly enough to follow this path to cutting off Islamic extremists. I don't see either of the parties offering clarity when it comes to foreign policy in regards to this in a way that makes any kind of sense.

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.