Lovely Quote

[Trance Gemini]

A posting on my FB page. Love it!

"Don’t speak to me about your religion; first show it to me in how you treat other people. Don't tell me how much you love your God; show me in how much you love all his children. Don't preach to me your passion for your faith; teach me through your compassion for your neighbors. In the end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as I am in how you choose to live and give." ~ Cory Booker

--

"If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it. Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.

Jubal Harshaw character in Stranger in a Strange Land

[love&peace]

On Dec 1, 1:09 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A posting on my FB page. Love it!
>
> "Don’t speak to me about your religion; first show it to me in how you
> treat other people. Don't tell me how much you love your God; show me in
> how much you love all his children. Don't preach to me your passion for
> your faith; teach me through your compassion for your neighbors. In the
> end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as I am in how
> you choose to live and give." ~ Cory Booker

Not just lovely, kindly too.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:21 AM, love&peace <willi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Dec 1, 1:09 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A posting on my FB page. Love it!
>
> "Don’t speak to me about your religion; first show it to me in how you
> treat other people. Don't tell me how much you love your God; show me in
> how much you love all his children. Don't preach to me your passion for
> your faith; teach me through your compassion for your neighbors. In the
> end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as I am in how
> you choose to live and give." ~ Cory Booker

Not just lovely, kindly too.

I thought so too.

[lawrey]

Trance

I would like to think it is a quote of some hear-tfelt sentiment of
some
feeling, I just wish it hadn't mentioned religion in the assertion
that we
are all god's children.

It spanks of contrived electioneering, which spoils what may have
been genuine thought on the hoof.

But yes Trance, I can understand why you would favour it.

[Trance Gemini]

It doesn't say that Lawrey. Read it again.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

A posting on my FB page. Love it!

"Don’t speak to me about your religion; first show it to me in how you treat other people. Don't tell me how much you love your God; show me in how much you love all his children. Don't preach to me your passion for your faith; teach me through your compassion for your neighbors. In the end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as I am in how you choose to live and give." ~ Cory Booker

One comment. While I like the message I don't agree with the politics of the messenger. I am not a Zeitgeist supporter or advocate.

[love&peace]

On Dec 1, 2:04 pm, lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Trance
>
> I would like to think it is a quote of some hear-tfelt sentiment of
> some
> feeling, I just wish it hadn't mentioned religion in the assertion
> that we
> are all god's children.
>
> It spanks of contrived electioneering, which spoils what may have
> been genuine thought on the hoof.

Don't religious people have the senses to experience and express such
heart-felt sentiments? The gulf, humanly, is not as wide as you would
want make it out.

[Brock]

On Dec 1, 7:09 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A posting on my FB page. Love it!
>
> "Don’t speak to me about your religion; first show it to me in how you
> treat other people. Don't tell me how much you love your God; show me in
> how much you love all his children. Don't preach to me your passion for
> your faith; teach me through your compassion for your neighbors. In the
> end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as I am in how
> you choose to live and give." ~ Cory Booker

As if Christians were sales-people, earning a commission by sharing
the gospel! :)

Contrastingly, I consider that a believer is just one sinful beggar
sharing good news with another, such as illustrated in the following
example:

"Then they said to one another, “We are not doing right. This day is a
day of good news, but we are keeping silent; if we wait until morning
light, punishment will overtake us. Now therefore come, let us go and
tell the king’s household.”"

http://nasb.scripturetext.com/2_kings/7-1.htm

The good news that God offers mercy and pardon to repentant sinners is
too good to keep silent! :D :D

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Brock <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 1, 7:09 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A posting on my FB page. Love it!
>
> "Don’t speak to me about your religion; first show it to me in how you
> treat other people. Don't tell me how much you love your God; show me in
> how much you love all his children. Don't preach to me your passion for
> your faith; teach me through your compassion for your neighbors. In the
> end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as I am in how
> you choose to live and give." ~ Cory Booker

As if Christians were sales-people, earning a commission by sharing
the gospel! :)

Obviously the quote is objecting to Christians who behave like sales people and suggesting they focus on being good people and demonstrate their beliefs through their actions rather than hawk them like a marketer.

Are you denying that some or even many do?

 

Contrastingly, I consider that a believer is just one sinful beggar
sharing good news with another, such as illustrated in the following
example:

Ah so you are advocating the empty rhetoric of salesmanship.

Ever heard the saying, "Actions speak louder than words."?

 

"Then they said to one another, “We are not doing right. This day is a
day of good news, but we are keeping silent; if we wait until morning
light, punishment will overtake us. Now therefore come, let us go and
tell the king’s household.”"

http://nasb.scripturetext.com/2_kings/7-1.htm

The good news that God offers mercy and pardon to repentant sinners is
too good to keep silent! :D :D

Regards,

Brock

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Ed Jarrett]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

A posting on my FB page. Love it!

"Don’t speak to me about your religion; first show it to me in how you treat other people. Don't tell me how much you love your God; show me in how much you love all his children. Don't preach to me your passion for your faith; teach me through your compassion for your neighbors. In the end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as I am in how you choose to live and give." ~ Cory Booker

In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. - Matthew 5:16 NIV

 

--
Ed Jarrett

http://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Trance Gemini]

So Matthew agrees. Lol.

[Ed Jarrett]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

A posting on my FB page. Love it!

"Don’t speak to me about your religion; first show it to me in how you treat other people. Don't tell me how much you love your God; show me in how much you love all his children. Don't preach to me your passion for your faith; teach me through your compassion for your neighbors. In the end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as I am in how you choose to live and give." ~ Cory Booker

In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. - Matthew 5:16 NIV

So Matthew agrees. Lol.

Jesus does.  That we as Christians all too often attempt to bludgeon people with our words rather than by example is to our shame.

 

--

"If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it. Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.

Jubal Harshaw character in Stranger in a Strange Land

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Dec 1, 12:51 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://nasb.scripturetext.com/2_kings/7-1.htm
> The good news that God offers mercy and pardon to repentant sinners is
> too good to keep silent! :D :D

How can the rich man's relatives go to heaven?

"By listening to Moses and the Prophets", says Jesus
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A19-31&version=NIV

"By repententing" says Brock.

If Brock is right, then Jesus was wrong; i.e., Jesus conveyed
incorrect information to the listeners of this particular parable.

Now, does Brock really mean what he says when he claims that God
offers mercy and pardon to repentent sinners? If so, he would have
confirmed that Sajjan the Thug qualified for God's mercy and pardon
when he gave up thuggery, repented his sins and became a follower of
Guru Nanak (considered by most to be the founder of Sikhism). Brock
has yet to confirm that this repentant sinner qualifies for God's
mercy and pardon.
http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smsarticles/gurunanaksakhis/sajjanthug/

Also, does Brock really mean what he says when he implies that
unrepentant sinners don't qualify for God's mercy and pardon? If he
really means it, then he would have confirmed that unrepentant aborted
fetuses don't qualify for God's mercy and pardon. He has yet to
confirm this.

So, Brock, it is not at all clear that you yourself believe the news
that you call good news.

[Walt L]

That is a great quote.

Walt

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Walt L <unctarheel...@gmail.com> wrote:

That is a great quote.

Thanks Walt. And welcome to AvC. Enjoying your posts.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Ed Jarrett <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

A posting on my FB page. Love it!

"Don’t speak to me about your religion; first show it to me in how you treat other people. Don't tell me how much you love your God; show me in how much you love all his children. Don't preach to me your passion for your faith; teach me through your compassion for your neighbors. In the end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as I am in how you choose to live and give." ~ Cory Booker

In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. - Matthew 5:16 NIV

So Matthew agrees. Lol.

Jesus does.  That we as Christians all too often attempt to bludgeon people with our words rather than by example is to our shame.

For me, all that matters is if someone is basically a decent person. I don't really care why.

We can be good without god(s) and we can be good with god(s).

What matters is that we're good.

[Trance Gemini]

LMAO!

On Dec 1, 2:56 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 12:51 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://nasb.scripturetext.com/2_kings/7-1.htm
> > The good news that God offers mercy and pardon to repentant sinners is
> > too good to keep silent! :D :D
>
> How can the rich man's relatives go to heaven?
>

> "By listening to Moses and the Prophets", says Jesushttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A19-31&version=NIV

>
> "By repententing" says Brock.
>
> If Brock is right, then Jesus was wrong; i.e., Jesus conveyed
> incorrect information to the listeners of this particular parable.
>
> Now, does Brock really mean what he says when he claims that God
> offers mercy and pardon to repentent sinners? If so, he would have
> confirmed that Sajjan the Thug qualified for God's mercy and pardon
> when he gave up thuggery, repented his sins and became a follower of
> Guru Nanak (considered by most to be the founder of Sikhism). Brock
> has yet to confirm that this repentant sinner qualifies for God's

> mercy and pardon.http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smsarticles/gurunanaksakhis/sajjanthug/

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 1, 2011, at 2:56 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:

How can the rich man's relatives go to heaven?

Well, to the degree that "how" considers algorithm over person, the focus may be misplaced. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 1, 2011, at 2:56 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:

Also, does Brock really mean what he says when he implies that
unrepentant sinners don't qualify for God's mercy and pardon? 

Citation?  Where did I say that?

Regards,

Brock

[xeno]

On Dec 1, 9:51 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I consider that a believer is just one sinful beggar
> sharing good news with another,

So, misery loves company and wants to pass chain letters, sharing
misguided illusions & wallowing in shame.

[Alan Wostenberg]

Reminds me of that St. Francis's saying "Preach the gospel always. Sometimes use words"

[Duke of Omnium]

A reminder that christianity is like syphilis: it only feels good when
it's being spread.

[Eris]

Great quote. Wish I had something intelligent to add.

[dillan]

On Dec 1, 11:44 pm, Duke of Omnium <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder that christianity is like syphilis: it only feels good when
> it's being spread.

Speaking from experience? :) (j/k)
Christianity is like spreading sunshine on a rainy day. It not only
take away the gloominess, it nourishes and liven up everything it
touches.

[Trance Gemini]

<whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Eris <vit...@gmail.com> wrote:

Great quote. Wish I had something intelligent to add.

That was intelligent.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Dec 1, 5:52 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 1, 2011, at 2:56 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > How can the rich man's relatives go to heaven?
>
> Well, to the degree that "how" considers algorithm over person, the focus may be misplaced. :)

Is Jesus pleased to learn that you find his focus misplaced?

Repenting is a how, not a who. So, is your focus too misplaced?

> Regards,
> Brock

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Dec 1, 5:52 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 1, 2011, at 2:56 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Also, does Brock really mean what he says when he implies that
> > unrepentant sinners don't qualify for God's mercy and pardon?
>
> Citation?  Where did I say that?

You said "The good news that God offers mercy and pardon to REPENTANT
SINNERS is too good to keep silent!"

This implies that God does not offer mercy and pardon to unrepentant
sinners.

If it didn't imply this, you would've said "The good news that God
offers mercy and pardon to ALL SINNERS is too good to keep silent!"

[Observer]

On Dec 1, 9:51 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 1, 7:09 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A posting on my FB page. Love it!
>
> > "Don’t speak to me about your religion; first show it to me in how you
> > treat other people. Don't tell me how much you love your God; show me in
> > how much you love all his children. Don't preach to me your passion for
> > your faith; teach me through your compassion for your neighbors. In the
> > end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as I am in how
> > you choose to live and give." ~ Cory Booker
>
> As if Christians were sales-people, earning a commission by sharing
> the gospel! :)

Observer
We are left to assume that you mean by " the gospel"the message
concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation .
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gospel

If so then I assert that such is the spreading of postulations from a
collection of untenable
ignorance based , misanthropic, superstitious nonsense.

The basic premise from which, such are extrapolated is an assumption
of the existence of a "God" however poorly defined and conceptually
vague, inaccessible to logic, scientific method, and counter selected,
for the investment of belief therein, by the rules if critical
thought, by whom, according to Genesis 1:" In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth."

One which is referred to in this way "God is most often conceived of
as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians
have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different
conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience
(infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence
(present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine
simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

I contend that such as above is all meaningless, that there exists
no method to verify any of such as containing, truth bearing
postulates ,relating to past ,present or future, actuality.

And of course belief in such is contraindicated by the rules of
critical thought.

Quote

Critical thinking calls for the ability to:

Recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those
problems
Understand the importance of prioritization and order of
precedence in problem solving
Gather and marshal pertinent (relevant) information
Recognize unstated assumptions and values
Comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and
discernment
Interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments
Recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical
relationships between propositions
Draw warranted conclusions and generalizations
Put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one
arrives
Reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider
experience
Render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in
everyday life

In sum:

"A persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of
knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the
further conclusions to which it tends

Observer
Such to be tempered with the rules of critical thought which include
the following to which I have oft referred,

Falsifiability
Logic
Comprehensiveness
Honesty
Replicability
Sufficiency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thought

>
> Contrastingly, I consider that a believer is just one sinful beggar
> sharing good news with another, such as illustrated in the following
> example:

Observer

Such is based upon your simplistic and inadequate assessment of both
the idea of "good news", and the, misanthropy, of preaching that
humanity is inherently and purely vile by it's very nature while
ignoring the beauty , wonders and creativeness thereof.

>
> "Then they said to one another, “We are not doing right. This day is a
> day of good news, but we are keeping silent; if we wait until morning
> light, punishment will overtake us. Now therefore come, let us go and
> tell the king’s household.”"
>
> http://nasb.scripturetext.com/2_kings/7-1.htm

Observer

Such will serve nicely to affirm that they elected to become salesmen
who's commission , they believed , would consist of the avoidance of a
mythological future punishment.

>
> The good news that God offers mercy and pardon to repentant sinners is
> too good to keep silent! :D :D

Observer
The bad news is that little or no veracity can be established for the
text within such nonsense is postulated.

.Psychonomist

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:44 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:

Is Jesus pleased to learn that you find his focus misplaced?

To find out what Jesus said:

http://bible.cc

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:44 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:

Repenting is a how, not a who. So, is your focus too misplaced?

I don't agree with such a simplistic assessment.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:48 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:

You said "The good news that God offers mercy and pardon to REPENTANT
SINNERS is too good to keep silent!"

This implies that God does not offer mercy and pardon to unrepentant
sinners.

Or just that repentant sinners shall find mercy and pardon from a loving and gracious God.

Regards,

Brock

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Dec 2, 2:38 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:48 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > You said "The good news that God offers mercy and pardon to REPENTANT
> > SINNERS is too good to keep silent!"
>
> > This implies that God does not offer mercy and pardon to unrepentant
> > sinners.
>
> Or just that repentant sinners shall find mercy and pardon from a loving and gracious God.

It says nothing about unrepentant sinners? Then, why should
unrepentant sinners repent?

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Dec 2, 2:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:44 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Is Jesus pleased to learn that you find his focus misplaced?
>
> To find out what Jesus

is claimed to have

> said:

> http://bible.cc

Jesus, through a parable, gives a how rather than a who, which
(according to you) implies that his focus was misplaced:

'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
http://bible.cc/luke/16-29.htm

The Old Testament consists of the Law (called Moses here), Prophets
and Writings. The "how" that Jesus gives is: "Follow the 1st two parts
of the Old Testament"

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Dec 2, 2:37 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:44 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Repenting is a how, not a who. So, is your focus too misplaced?
>
> I don't agree with such a simplistic assessment.

Explain your assessment showing that your focus is not misplaced?

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 2, 2011, at 4:50 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:

You said "The good news that God offers mercy and pardon to REPENTANT

SINNERS is too good to keep silent!"

This implies that God does not offer mercy and pardon to unrepentant

sinners.

Or just that repentant sinners shall find mercy and pardon from a loving and gracious God.

It says nothing about unrepentant sinners?

I'll wait for the objection. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

But again, it is not so much of a how, rather than a who. Each and every sinner, in trying to follow God's wonderful and just moral law, can only find that they are unable to keep it. Only one person ever has! :)

But in noting that one cannot keep it, the covenant of unmerited grace becomes ever so attractive to repentant sinners! :D

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 2, 2011, at 5:03 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:

Repenting is a how, not a who. So, is your focus too misplaced?

I don't agree with such a simplistic assessment.

Explain your assessment showing that your focus is not misplaced?

Or alternatively wait for your objection.

Regards,

Brock

[Marc]

> To find out what Jesus said:
>
> http://bible.cc

Why bother finding out what he said?

[Brock Organ]

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

Is that the one where the Antichrist takes over the Vatican and
conspires with Russia and Islam to destroy Israel? That's my
favorite!

- Bob T
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 2, 2011, at 9:14 PM, Bob T. wrote:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp

Is that the one

Well, I consider the question rhetorical. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

Of course - that one is rather embarassing to own up to in front of
your fellow Christians who happen to be Catholic.

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 2, 2011, at 9:34 PM, Bob T. wrote:

Well, I consider the question rhetorical. :)

Of course - that one is rather embarassing to own up to in front of
your fellow Christians who happen to be Catholic.

Or rather, I considered that you weren't particularly interested in the answer.

Regards,

Brock

[philosophy]

Excellent statement, and true.

On Dec 1, 10:09 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A posting on my FB page. Love it!
>
> "Don’t speak to me about your religion; first show it to me in how you
> treat other people. Don't tell me how much you love your God; show me in
> how much you love all his children. Don't preach to me your passion for
> your faith; teach me through your compassion for your neighbors. In the
> end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as I am in how
> you choose to live and give." ~ Cory Booker
>

[Bob T.]

On Dec 2, 6:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2011, at 9:34 PM, Bob T. wrote:
>
> >> Well, I consider the question rhetorical. :)
>
> > Of course - that one is rather embarassing to own up to in front of
> > your fellow Christians who happen to be Catholic.
>
> Or rather, I

find certain of Mr. Chick's opinions too embarassing to remark upon,
and yet inexplicably continue to post links to his vile and poorly-
drawn cartoons. We know.

[lawrey]

Hi Trance,

Sorry had all sorts of prob's with computer.
I read it again this morning and it said something quite different.
with the date changed to the 2nd I responded to the 1st I think
anyway I've gone off it altogether now.

On Dec 1, 1:04 pm, lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Trance
>
> I would like to think it is a quote of some hear-tfelt sentiment of
> some
> feeling, I just wish it hadn't mentioned religion in the assertion
> that we
> are all god's children.
>
> It spanks of contrived electioneering, which spoils what may have
> been genuine thought on the hoof.
>
> But yes Trance, I can understand why you would favour it.

[lawrey]

LP

Sure they do, but in the end analysis its all about finding ways
to spread the crap of religion.

On Dec 1, 1:20 pm, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Dec 1, 2:04 pm, lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Trance
>
> > I would like to think it is a quote of some hear-tfelt sentiment of
> > some
> > feeling, I just wish it hadn't mentioned religion in the assertion
> > that we
> > are all god's children.
>
> > It spanks of contrived electioneering, which spoils what may have
> > been genuine thought on the hoof.
>

> Don't religious people have the senses to experience and express such
> heart-felt sentiments? The gulf, humanly, is not as wide as you would
> want make it out.

[Observer]

On Dec 1, 11:32 am, Ed Jarrett <edjarret...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > A posting on my FB page. Love it!
>
> > "Don’t speak to me about your religion; first show it to me in how you
> > treat other people. Don't tell me how much you love your God; show me in
> > how much you love all his children. Don't preach to me your passion for
> > your faith; teach me through your compassion for your neighbors. In the
> > end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as I am in how
> > you choose to live and give." ~ Cory Booker
>

> In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your
> good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. - Matthew 5:16 NIV

Observer

I completely reject , with due cause , that such as a " Father in
heaven" is meaningful until and only if either heaven or God can be
established as other than superstitious nonsense.

Further the phrase " your Father in heaven" is spurious ,and tends
to indicate either idea is of utility .

Further belief in such (which is indecently select against by the
simple rules critical thought) tends to reduce the use of tools
( scientific method, functional logic,(of which critical thought is
basic)) , and interferes with our traverse from , near infinite
ignorance to lesser degrees thereof. In so doing, it puts all of the
investigative functions which are of utility sustaining and improving
our quality of life, indeed even our very survival , in great peril.

Of course I concur that one should put his/her money where their
mouth is.

Best regards to you and yours

Dave

>
> --
> Ed Jarretthttp://aclayjar.blogspot.com/

[Observer]

On Dec 2, 11:36 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:44 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Is Jesus pleased to learn that you find his focus misplaced?
>
> To find out what Jesus said:

Observer

Correction, what the this poor itinerant preacher, allegedly said
according to a collection of superstitious nonsensical concoctions
produced by ignorant primitives , the veracity of which (the bible)
has yet to be established.

Psychonomist

>
> http://bible.cc
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Observer]

On Dec 2, 11:38 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:48 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > You said "The good news that God offers mercy and pardon to REPENTANT
> > SINNERS is too good to keep silent!"
>
> > This implies that God does not offer mercy and pardon to unrepentant
> > sinners.
>
> Or just that repentant sinners shall find mercy and pardon from a loving and gracious God

Observer

I object to the inclusion of such utter nonsense as ,there are few,
and very inadequate, logical reasons to accept that such, as this god
thing ,is other than the product of ignorance based superstitious
primitive speculation.

If you disagree then by all means provide testable data proving that
this* Judo Christian*, idea of a god thing is representative of a
verifiable actuality.

Psychonomist

.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[LL]

On Dec 2, 11:36 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:44 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Is Jesus pleased to learn that you find his focus misplaced?
>
> To find out what Jesus said:
>
> http://bible.cc

LL. You will find out in the bible only what ordinary human beings
with a fixation about the supernatural said.

......
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Observer]

On Dec 2, 4:33 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2011, at 4:50 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>> You said "The good news that God offers mercy and pardon to REPENTANT
> >>> SINNERS is too good to keep silent!"
>
> >>> This implies that God does not offer mercy and pardon to unrepentant
> >>> sinners.
>
> >> Or just that repentant sinners shall find mercy and pardon from a loving and gracious God.
>
> > It says nothing about unrepentant sinners?
>

> I'll wait for the objection. :)

Observer

The objection is inherent in questioning the veracity of your
baseless claim .

Are you really that fucking stupid?

Psychonomist

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Dec 2, 7:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2011, at 5:01 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 2:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:44 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>> Is Jesus pleased to learn that you find his focus misplaced?
>
> >> To find out what Jesus
>
> > is claimed to have
>
> >> said:
>
> >>http://bible.cc
>
> > Jesus, through a parable, gives a how rather than a who, which
> > (according to you) implies that his focus was misplaced:
>
> > 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
> >http://bible.cc/luke/16-29.htm
>
> > The Old Testament consists of the Law (called Moses here), Prophets
> > and Writings. The "how" that Jesus gives is: "Follow the 1st two parts
> > of the Old Testament"
>
> But again, it is not so much of a how, rather than a who. Each and every sinner, in trying to follow God's

Jesus doesn't mention God in this parable; the only whos he mentions
are Moses and the Prophets.

> wonderful and just moral law, can only find that they are unable to keep it.

Jesus doesn't say Dives' relatives wouldn't be able to follow Moses
and the Prophets even if they tried.

>  Only one person ever has! :)

Does Jesus mention such a person?

> But in noting that one cannot keep it,

Jesus doesn't note it in this parable. Does he note it anywhere else?

> the covenant of unmerited grace becomes ever so attractive to repentant sinners! :D

What attracted the unrepentant sinner Sajjan the Thug to become
repentant?

> Regards,
> Brock

[Observer]

On Dec 2, 4:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2011, at 5:01 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 2:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:44 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>> Is Jesus pleased to learn that you find his focus misplaced?
>
> >> To find out what Jesus
>
> > is claimed to have
>
> >> said:
>
> >>http://bible.cc
>
> > Jesus, through a parable, gives a how rather than a who, which
> > (according to you) implies that his focus was misplaced:
>
> > 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
> >http://bible.cc/luke/16-29.htm
>
> > The Old Testament consists of the Law (called Moses here), Prophets
> > and Writings. The "how" that Jesus gives is: "Follow the 1st two parts
> > of the Old Testament"
>
> But again, it is not so much of a how, rather than a who. Each and every sinner, in trying to follow God's wonderful and just moral law, can only find that they are unable to keep it.  Only one person ever has! :)

Objection

The Judo Christian god thing has never been established as a
representation of an actuality
and is therefore an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Quote

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or
"appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence
to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a
proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is
"generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false
dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is
insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to
prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor
does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two
(true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3)
unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the
first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used
to shift the burden of proof.

Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person
who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he
does.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one
can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not
exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a
hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and
Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism,
wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be
upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's
proponent.

End quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

>
> But in noting that one cannot keep it, the covenant of unmerited grace becomes ever so attractive to repentant sinners! :D

Pure hyperbole !

Objection

The" it " to which you refer is neither proven to be actual nor of any
utility to human kind, as it is the product of a fallacious
assumption, that such as a god as is described in the biblical
accounting (for which no proof of veracity exists) is accurate or
pertains to any actuality.

Psychonomist

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Bob T. wrote:

Or rather, I

find certain of Mr. Chick's opinions too embarassing to remark upon,

Or previously noted Mr. Chick's defense of his positions for Bob T., and continued defending mine. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 1:38 PM, LL wrote:

To find out what Jesus said:

http://bible.cc

LL. You will find out in the bible only what ordinary human beings
with a fixation about the supernatural said.

I consider instead the Statement:

"2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning."

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 1:56 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:

Jesus, through a parable, gives a how rather than a who, which

(according to you) implies that his focus was misplaced:

'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

http://bible.cc/luke/16-29.htm

The Old Testament consists of the Law (called Moses here), Prophets

and Writings. The "how" that Jesus gives is: "Follow the 1st two parts

of the Old Testament"

But again, it is not so much of a how, rather than a who. Each and every sinner, in trying to follow God's

Jesus doesn't mention God in this parable; the only whos he mentions
are Moses and the Prophets.

But I disagree that your assessment supports the characterization that Jesus gives a how rather than a who.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 1:56 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Only one person ever has! :)

Does Jesus mention such a person?

I'll wait for the objection.

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

On Dec 3, 11:21 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 3, 2011, at 1:56 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>  Only one person ever has! :)
>
> > Does Jesus mention such a person?
>
> I'll wait for

a working brain before answering.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Dec 3, 2:21 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Follow" is a verb. Is a verb not a how?

> rather than a who.

Who was the "who" whom Jesus gave in this parable?

> Regards,
>
> Brock

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Dec 3, 2:20 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2011, at 1:38 PM, LL wrote:
>
> >> To find out what Jesus said:
>
> >>http://bible.cc
>
> > LL. You will find out in the bible only what ordinary human beings
> > with a fixation about the supernatural said.
>
> I consider instead the Statement:
>
> "2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

Is "Heaven is Real" a holy scripture? Whether your answer is "yes" or
"no", state how you deduced the answer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/books/heaven-is-for-real-is-publishing-phenomenon.html

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Bob T. wrote:

I'll wait for

a working brain before answering.

Actually, what I said was I'll wait for the objection.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 2:32 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:

But I disagree that your assessment supports the characterization that Jesus gives a how

"Follow" is a verb. Is a verb not a how?

In that the use of a verb "to follow" is neither a specific algorithm, method, decision tree or heuristic, I don't consider your assessment supports the characterization.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 2:37 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:

"2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

Is "Heaven is Real" a holy scripture? Whether your answer is "yes" or
"no", state how you deduced the answer.

[Bob T.]

On Dec 3, 12:22 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Bob T. wrote:
>
> >> I'll wait for
>
> > a working brain before answering.
>
> Actually, what I said was I'll

be too embarassed to actually answer the question, and therefore must

> wait for the objection.

I knew it.

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Bob T. wrote:

Actually, what I said was I'll

be too embarassed to actually answer the question, and therefore must

wait for the objection.

No, what I said was I'll wait for the objection.

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

until people stop asking embarassing questions like "Do you think the
death penalty is immoral" or "Do you agree with your favorite
cartoonist that the Antichrist will take over the Vatican any day
now?"

[xeno]

On Dec 3, 11:20 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I consider instead the Statement:

> "2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of .

> infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it > affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

Consider what's left after you take away the gingerbread & the flashy
color lights:

(2) Scripture...written by men....is to be believed...in all that it
requires. Without the smoke & mirrors lays a dubious proposition.

> Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Bob T. wrote:

No, what I said was I'll wait for the objection.

until people stop asking embarassing questions

Nothing embarrassing about noting the limitations of some questions, and waiting instead, for the objection. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

He says, once again avoiding having to answer the questions he finds
embarasssing. Stick around, folks, Brock's got dozens of ways to
evade!

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Bob T. wrote:

Nothing embarrassing about noting the limitations of some questions, and waiting instead, for the objection. :)

He says, once again avoiding having to answer the questions he finds
embarasssing.

Or considering instead that the virtue of a question is not the virtue of an objection.

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

Indeed, the virtue of a question is that you can use it to acquire an
answer. Unless, of course, one is asking the objectionable Brock, who
would rather look like a coward than answer an embarassing question.

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Bob T. wrote:

Or considering instead that the virtue of a question is not the virtue of an objection.

Indeed, the virtue of a question is that you can use it to acquire an
answer. 

That is one use, and generally speaking, that particular use is often virtuous.

But, you know Bob T., you might be surprised to find that not all questions are asked with such an expectation. :)

Two good examples of when someone may not be using a question in such a manner are:

* when an OP opposes positions to the point of using cursing, invective and vitriol

* when an OP rejects a position, but without having a positional basis

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Bob T. wrote:

Unless, of course, one is asking the objectionable Brock, who
would rather look like a coward than answer an embarassing question.

And here we have a poster from the first type of example that I referenced. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

On Dec 3, 4:50 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Bob T. wrote:
>
> >> Or considering instead that the virtue of a question is not the virtue of an objection.
>
> > Indeed, the virtue of a question is that you can use it to acquire an
> > answer.
>
> That is one use, and generally speaking, that particular use is often virtuous.

For example, when I wanted to know whether you asked you if you agreed
with Jack Chick about the Antichrist in the Vatican, I asked you. You
embarassed yourself by evading, dodging, and prevaricating at great
length.

>
> But, you know Bob T., you might be surprised to find that not all questions are

answered. I know - for example, some people are too afraid of
embarassment to answer an honest question honestly.

- Bob T

[Bob T.]

On Dec 3, 4:51 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Bob T. wrote:
>
> > Unless, of course, one is asking the objectionable Brock, who
> > would rather look like a coward than answer an embarassing question.
>
> And here we have a poster

who is sick and tired of your cowardly evasions, and not afraid to say
so.

- Bob T

> Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 8:00 PM, Bob T. wrote:

That is one use, and generally speaking, that particular use is often virtuous.

For example, when I wanted to know whether you asked you if you agreed
with Jack Chick about the Antichrist in the Vatican, I asked you.  You
embarassed yourself by evading, dodging, and prevaricating at great
length.

Or just simply continued defending my own positions. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 8:01 PM, Bob T. wrote:

Unless, of course, one is asking the objectionable Brock, who

would rather look like a coward than answer an embarassing question.

And here we have a poster

who is sick and tired of your cowardly evasions, and not afraid to say
so.

Actually, what I said was:

[Bob T.]

One of those positions being "Jack Chick is a worthy cite", a position
that is not rationally defensible.

[Bob T.]

On Dec 3, 5:02 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2011, at 8:01 PM, Bob T. wrote:
>
> >>> Unless, of course, one is asking the objectionable Brock, who
> >>> would rather look like a coward than answer an embarassing question.
>
> >> And here we have a poster
>
> > who is sick and tired of your cowardly evasions, and not afraid to say
> > so.
>
> Actually, what I said was:
>
> "And here we have a poster

who is sick and tired of your cowardly evasions, we covered this
already.

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Bob T. wrote:

One of those positions being "Jack Chick is a worthy cite",

Where did I say that?

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 3, 2011, at 8:07 PM, Bob T. wrote:

"And here we have a poster

who is sick and tired of your cowardly evasions

Actually, what I said was:

[Bob T.]

On Dec 3, 11:48 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Bob T. wrote:
>
> > One of those positions being "Jack Chick is a worthy cite",
>
> Where did I say that?

You implied it by citing him repeatedly, duh. If you didn't think he
was a worthy cite, why would you post his cartoons? Oh, wait - you're
secretly an atheist and you believe that the more people who read Jack
Chick, the fewer Christians will remain.

[Trance Gemini]

You may be on to something here....

-- 

"If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it. Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.

Jubal Harshaw character in Stranger in a Strange Land

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Dec 3, 3:24 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 3, 2011, at 2:32 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> But I disagree that your assessment supports the characterization that Jesus gives a how
>
> > "Follow" is a verb. Is a verb not a how?
>
> In that the use of a verb "to follow" is neither a specific algorithm, method, decision tree or heuristic, I don't consider your assessment supports the characterization.

Did he tell the listeners of this parable how to follow the Torah
without following the algorithm in Leviticus 13 for diagnosing
leprosy, without following the methods for sacrifice specified by the
Torah, etc.? If not, the instruction received by the listeners of this
parable was a "how". Be that as it may, if you want to contend that it
was a "who", start by showing where in the parable this who is named.

> Regards,
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 4, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Bob T. wrote:

One of those positions being "Jack Chick is a worthy cite",

Where did I say that?

You implied it 

Ah, so I didn't say that. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 4, 2011, at 12:36 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:

Be that as it may, if you want to contend that it
was a "who", start by showing where in the parable this who is named.

Salvation is not a how, but a who, for example:

"Salvation is from the LORD."

http://bible.cc/jonah/2-9.htm

""You will pray to Him, and He will hear you; And you will pay your vows."

http://bible.cc/job/22-27.htm

"Then he will pray to God, and He will accept him, That he may see His face with joy, And He may restore His righteousness to man."

http://bible.cc/job/33-26.htm

"Because I delivered the poor who cried for help, And the orphan who had no helper."

http://bible.cc/job/29-12.htm

"Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I shall rescue you, and you will honor Me."

http://bible.cc/psalms/50-15.htm

"In my distress I called upon the LORD, And cried to my God for help; He heard my voice out of His temple, And my cry for help before Him came into His ears."

http://bible.cc/psalms/18-6.htm

Regards,

Brock

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Dec 4, 1:58 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 4, 2011, at 12:36 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Be that as it may, if you want to contend that it
> > was a "who", start by showing where in the parable this who is named.
>
> Salvation is not a how, but a who, for example:

All this says is that the Lord saves; it doesn't say what it would
take for the Lord to save the rich man's relatives:

> "Salvation is from the LORD."http://bible.cc/jonah/2-9.htm

All the following are from the Kitubim (Writings); in the parable,
Jesus says "Moses and the Prophets", not "the Writings."

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:26 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:

Salvation is not a how, but a who, for example:

All this says is that the Lord saves

More than that, it indicates that it is relationship with the person of the Lord, not an algorithm, decision tree, or heuristic.

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

I did not claim that you said it, I pointed out that it was obviously
one of your positions... unless you're just a clown, of course.

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 4, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Bob T. wrote:

Ah, so I didn't say that. :)

I did not claim that you said it

Well, you'll understand if I only defend my positions then, and not your statements. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

You're weaseling again. Since you post links to Chick tracts so
frequently, it's obvious that you regard him as a worthy cite. One
could say the same for me about the science articles on Wikipedia,
without needing me to actually say "I regard the Wikipedia science
articles as worthy cites.".

Of course, what can one expect from a person who is afraid to state
his position on capital punishment?

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 4, 2011, at 7:16 PM, Bob T. wrote:

Ah, so I didn't say that. :)

I did not claim that you said it

Well, you'll understand if I only defend my positions then, and not your statements. :)

You're weaseling again.

Nope, I'm just not obligated to defend your statements.

Regards,

Brock

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

No; you demonstrated it. By citing Chick (i.e., by posting links to
Chick tracts), you demonstrated that you find Chick worthy of citing.

> Regards,
> Brock

[Bob T.]

On Dec 7, 11:15 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

Exactly. It's as if somebody pointed out that I like to argue with
theists on the Internet, and I said "I never said I like to argue with
theists on the Internet!". I don't need to say something that I have
demonstrated repeatedly, and neither does Brock.

- Bob T
>
>
>
> > Regards,
> > Brock- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Dec 4, 2:43 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:26 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> Salvation is not a how, but a who, for example:
>
> > All this says is that the Lord saves

> More than that, it indicates that it is relationship with the person of the Lord,

"The lifeguard saves" doesn't indicate a relationship with the person
of a lifeguard. So, neither does "The Lord saves" indicate a
relationship with the Lord.

> not an algorithm, decision tree, or heuristic.

"Repent" is your algorithm by which to gain mercy and pardon. In this
parable, Jesus doesn't recommend your algorithm since "follow Moses
and the Prophets" hardly means "become a repentant sinner". So, if you
are right, then Jesus was wrong when telling this parable.

Why was Lazarus allowed into heaven? The parable ignores the question
of whether he was a sinner, so it doesn't indicate that it was because
he was a repentant sinner. It doesn't even indicate that it was
because he followed Moses and the Prophets. It indicates that it was
because Lazarus was poor in his lifetime.
<<in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus
received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in
agony.>>

If Jesus was right when he told this parable, then you are wrong.

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:15 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:

Ah, so I didn't say that. :)

No; you demonstrated it. By citing Chick (i.e., by posting links to
Chick tracts), you demonstrated that you find Chick worthy of citing.

Well, I'll stick with statements I actually made, instead of ones others have made for me. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:33 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 4, 2:43 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:26 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:

Salvation is not a how, but a who, for example:

All this says is that the Lord saves

More than that, it indicates that it is relationship with the person of the Lord,

"The lifeguard saves" doesn't indicate a relationship with the person

of a lifeguard. So, neither does "The Lord saves".

Well, the point was that the original question was in regards to "how", which was not adequate categorically. :)

The Lord saves, and He does so in a manner that is not competently evaluated by an appeal to algorithm, process, decision tree or heuristic.

Regards,

Brock