God Prefers Atheists :-)

[Trance Gemini]

Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice

[Bob Crowley]

The cartoon's a bit sillly. Not too many Christians would rely on God
to get rid of their extra thirty pounds, and most Christians don't
steal because they're worried about God seeing them, but because they
recognise it's wrong, and basically hurts someone else. And when it
comes to land brawls, there's usually a lot more to it than just
religion. The Zionist movement which fought for an independent Israel
was largely irreligious, and fairly socialist, which was the basis of
the kibbutz style of living.

As a good atheist, you probably recognise your European ancestors took
the North American continent from the original Indian inhabitants by
force. Are you going to hand it all back in the name of atheistic
justice?

> rehabcolor.png
> 189KViewDownload

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Bob Crowley <bobcr...@acenet.net.au> wrote:

The cartoon's a bit sillly.  Not too many Christians would rely on God
to get rid of their extra thirty pounds, and most Christians don't
steal because they're worried about God seeing them, but because they
recognise it's wrong, and basically hurts someone else.  And when it
comes to land brawls, there's usually a lot more to it than just
religion.  The Zionist movement which fought for an independent Israel
was largely irreligious, and fairly socialist, which was the basis of
the kibbutz style of living.

As a good atheist, you probably recognise your European ancestors took
the North American continent from the original Indian inhabitants by
force.  Are you going to hand it all back in the name of atheistic
justice?

Bobby. It's 7:30AM on a Saturday morning and the cartoon is a joke.

Have your coffee, look out the window, enjoy the sunrise, then read the cartoon again and laugh.

 

It's good for you ;-)

On Nov 22, 10:09 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
> assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
> to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
> Supreme Court Justice
>

>  rehabcolor.png
> 189KViewDownload

--

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Bob Crowley <bobcr...@acenet.net.au> wrote:

The cartoon's a bit sillly.  Not too many Christians would rely on God
to get rid of their extra thirty pounds, and most Christians don't
steal because they're worried about God seeing them, but because they
recognise it's wrong, and basically hurts someone else.  And when it
comes to land brawls, there's usually a lot more to it than just
religion.  The Zionist movement which fought for an independent Israel
was largely irreligious, and fairly socialist, which was the basis of
the kibbutz style of living.

As a good atheist, you probably recognise your European ancestors took

And while I am a good atheist :-) my ancestors are not European...

 

the North American continent from the original Indian inhabitants by
force.  Are you going to hand it all back in the name of atheistic
justice?

Bobby. It's 7:30AM on a Saturday morning and the cartoon is a joke.

Have your coffee, look out the window, enjoy the sunrise, then read the cartoon again and laugh.

 

It's good for you ;-)

On Nov 22, 10:09 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
> assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
> to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
> Supreme Court Justice
>

>  rehabcolor.png
> 189KViewDownload

--

Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice

[Bob Crowley]

It ain't 7.30am in the morning over here. It's 11.00pm on a Saturday
night, and I'm about to head off to bed.

See you in church tomorrow.

On Nov 22, 10:51 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Bob Crowley <bobcr...@acenet.net.au> wrote:

It ain't 7.30am in the morning over here. It's 11.00pm on a Saturday
night, and I'm about to head off to bed.

See you in church tomorrow.

In your dreams ;-).

Night, night...

[Drafterman]

On Nov 22, 7:45 am, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
> The cartoon's a bit sillly.

Well.... it's a carton.

> Not too many Christians would rely on God
> to get rid of their extra thirty pounds,

So you disagree that there is power to prayer?

> and most Christians don't
> steal because they're worried about God seeing them, but because they
> recognise it's wrong, and basically hurts someone else.

Either God created morality or he didn't. If you believe he did then
the cartoon is dead on.

> And when it
> comes to land brawls, there's usually a lot more to it than just
> religion.

Almost all of the Old Testamant disagrees with you

> The Zionist movement which fought for an independent Israel
> was largely irreligious, and fairly socialist, which was the basis of
> the kibbutz style of living.
>
> As a good atheist, you probably recognise your European ancestors took
> the North American continent from the original Indian inhabitants by
> force.  Are you going to hand it all back in the name of atheistic
> justice?

Well... we can sit back and acknowledge that many things the
colonialists and early US government did were wrong in that regard.
Are you willing to admit that genocidal war-mongering of the
Isrealites of the Old Testament were wrong to obey God and do what
they did?

[Trance Gemini]

Nice :-). We know DMan's had his coffee this morning. He's on a roll.

--

[semi]

This is an excellent post Trance. I agree that in such cases God does
prefer Atheists. But since Atheists don't prefer God, both Atheists
and some who even call themselves Theists will suffer at the hand of
God's judgement.

Matthew 7:21 > "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter
the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in
heaven."

John 3:18 > He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does
not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the
name of the only begotten Son of God.

"Did you know".....Jesus rejects all the characters in that cartoon?

>  rehabcolor.png
> 189KViewDownload

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:32 AM, semi <semino...@yahoo.com> wrote:

This is an excellent post Trance. I agree that in such cases God does
prefer Atheists. But since Atheists don't prefer God, both Atheists
and some who even call themselves Theists will suffer at the hand of
God's judgement.

Matthew 7:21 > "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter
the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in
heaven."

John 3:18 > He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does
not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the
name of the only begotten Son of God.

"Did you know".....Jesus rejects all the characters in that cartoon?

;-)

 

[checkers]

On Nov 22, 5:32 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is an excellent post Trance. I agree that in such cases God does
> prefer Atheists.

chx
no semi, you brought the wrong armour. that was a terrible post of
hers. i was waiting for more replies and to see how others reply to
this. i'll hang on a bit longer before i give my response.
go read those jokes again and see how silly they are.

;-)

> > 189KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Chris]

On Nov 22, 4:52 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And while I am a good atheist :-) my ancestors are not European...

LOLSH@"good atheist". Definitely a contradiction in terms. LOL.

But yes you'd better not make this mistake again BOB! Kitters is AvC's
resident Maharincess. She is not a Europeon. You little cad! What a
screwup!

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Nov 22, 7:32 am, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John 3:18 > He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does
> not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the
> name of the only begotten Son of God.

Are Moses, David, Elijah, the good Samaritan*, etc. condemned because
they had not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God?
* supposing that there really was one who lived and died before Jesus
was born

[semi]

Well, I suppose my language was not too clear. In the end of my post
though, I clearly implied that God did not prefer either of them. So,
rather than striving at a gnat, swallow the camel at the end. But
atleast we both can agree that it was silly, unless ofcourse you see
something else worthy of mentioning that nullifies our agreement.

[semi]

On Nov 22, 2:12 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

They were saved by the promise. They had faith in the God who will
actually bring the promises of the Messiah come to pass.

[Chris]

Ranjit, I so so find it unbelievable that you ask questions like this.
This is hardly the first time.

On Nov 22, 11:12 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

[semi]

Or, in another sense, they were saved the same way Christians are
saved today, by the sacrifice of Jesus. They however had faith in the
God that will bring the promises of the Messiah.

On Nov 22, 2:12 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

LOL. Hey I'm totally impressed Chrissy. Ya remembered :-)

 

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM, semi <semino...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well, I suppose my language was not too clear. In the end of my post
though, I clearly implied that God did not prefer either of them. So,
rather than striving at a gnat, swallow the camel at the end. But
atleast we both can agree that it was silly, unless ofcourse you see
something else worthy of mentioning that nullifies our agreement.

Well generally speaking cartoons are supposed to be silly Semi.

Come on. Admit it. You got a little chuckle out of it :-)

--

[Trance Gemini]

Good question :-)

 

--

[Chris]

It was only about 2 weeks ago that I found out. I'm not totally
bonkers. Yet.

On Nov 22, 11:41 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Chris <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:

It was only about 2 weeks ago that I found out. I'm not totally
bonkers. Yet.

Well this is just a fun thread so it wouldn't matter here if you were :-)

[Dev]

Puts a new spin on Pascal's Wager, doesn't it?

>  rehabcolor.png
> 189KViewDownload

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Puts a new spin on Pascal's Wager, doesn't it?

That it does :-)

--

[Bob Crowley]

What's the use of your acknowledgement of the wrong your ancestors
did? Is that going to restore the land to the original inhabitants or
restore the massacred Indians back to life?

One rule for you by the look of it, and one for the ancient
Israelites.

What's the difference? Both slaughtered the original inhabitants and
both took the land.

[Bob Crowley]

On Nov 22, 11:21 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 22, 7:45 am, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > The cartoon's a bit sillly.
>
> Well.... it's a carton.
>
> > Not too many Christians would rely on God
> > to get rid of their extra thirty pounds,
>
> So you disagree that there is power to prayer?

If you can help yourself in a mundane matter, God expects you to do
so. If a Christian has blown out his credit card, then God's not
going to put money into his bank account because God would expect the
Christian not to make the stupid mistake in the first place.

There can be power to prayer, but as God said through Paul, "My power
is made perfect in (your) weakness". This means that prayer will have
most effect if there is nothing the person can do any more to help
themselves.

>
> > and most Christians don't
> > steal because they're worried about God seeing them, but because they
> > recognise it's wrong, and basically hurts someone else.
>
> Either God created morality or he didn't. If you believe he did then
> the cartoon is dead on.

He created morality, but the average Christian does not spend the
whole day sweating over the occasional moral lapse, which is what the
cartoon implies.

>
> > And when it
> > comes to land brawls, there's usually a lot more to it than just
> > religion.
>
> Almost all of the Old Testamant disagrees with you

How about Russia and Ossetia. Germay, France and Alsace Lorraine.
England, Scotland and Wales. European colonists and Red Indians,
Indonesia and East Timor. Antarctica and the various national
territories thus staked. Turkey, Greece and Cyprus. Tamil Tigers.
Mussolini's Italy and Ethiopia. The wars after Yugoslavia fell apart,
other than Kosovo. THe US and Mexico. The US, Spain and the
Phillippines. Cuba and the US. China and Japan vying over Korea.

>
> > The Zionist movement which fought for an independent Israel
> > was largely irreligious, and fairly socialist, which was the basis of
> > the kibbutz style of living.
>
> > As a good atheist, you probably recognise your European ancestors took
> > the North American continent from the original Indian inhabitants by
> > force. Are you going to hand it all back in the name of atheistic
> > justice?
>
> Well... we can sit back and acknowledge that many things the
> colonialists and early US government did were wrong in that regard.
> Are you willing to admit that genocidal war-mongering of the
> Isrealites of the Old Testament were wrong to obey God and do what
> they did?
>

See my other post.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Nov 22, 11:27 am, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Or, in another sense, they were saved the same way Christians are
> saved today, by the sacrifice of Jesus.

Then, one doesn't need to believe in Jesus to be saved by the
sacrifice of Jesus!

> They however had faith in the
> God that will bring the promises of the Messiah.

David was a messiah himself. Does any of the psalms attributed to him
show that he had any idea of promises about (did you really mean
"of"?) some messiah other than himself?

[Turner Hayes]

"The cartoon's a bit sillly."

I just want to repeat that:

"The cartoon's a bit sillly."

Yet another gem of intelligent commentary by oour Bobby.

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Bob Crowley <bobcr...@acenet.net.au> wrote:

The cartoon's a bit sillly.  Not too many Christians would rely on God
to get rid of their extra thirty pounds, and most Christians don't

steal because they're worried about God seeing them, but because they

recognise it's wrong, and basically hurts someone else.  And when it

comes to land brawls, there's usually a lot more to it than just

religion.  The Zionist movement which fought for an independent Israel

was largely irreligious, and fairly socialist, which was the basis of
the kibbutz style of living.

As a good atheist, you probably recognise your European ancestors took
the North American continent from the original Indian inhabitants by
force.  Are you going to hand it all back in the name of atheistic
justice?

On Nov 22, 10:09 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
> assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
> to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
> Supreme Court Justice
>

>  rehabcolor.png
> 189KViewDownload

[Lawrey]

Trance,

I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but I am just a little perplexed at
the
suggestion even that there is such a thing as mentioned in the title
and I am surprised you didn't refer to it as: The-Pie-In-The-Sky-Hope,
or anything rather that give the name credance.

Otherwise a great post. And I love you anyway. ;-)

[Lawrey]

Chris,

You should learn to pay attention and learn something once in
a while: Atheism is Non-Belief in god/s. Nothing more.

The majority of atheists are good people and there is no contradiction
in "GOOD ATHEIST". Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest.

[TLC]

In the beginning the America's were divided up and given to our
ancesters by gods Numero Uno godman, the pope. And Genocide was
blessed. Later the Protestants saw the riches of North America and
when they committed bouts of Genocide they prayed for the souls of the
dead native Americans.

Seems like, in the name of god, is a good way to get rich and not be
responsible for your actions!

[etienne]

On 22 nov, 20:10, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 4:52 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And while I am a good atheist :-) my ancestors are not European...
>
>  LOLSH@"good atheist". Definitely a contradiction in terms. LOL.
>

You are destroying your own religion in your attempts to defend /
propagate it, classic.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:09 AM, Lawrey <lawre...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Trance,

I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but I am just a little perplexed at
the
suggestion even that there is such a thing as mentioned in the title
and I am surprised you didn't refer to it as: The-Pie-In-The-Sky-Hope,
or anything rather that give the name credance.

Otherwise a great post. And I love you anyway. ;-)

Just making a point in a light and humorous way, Lawrey :-).

Look at it this way. 

If there was a God and the God was a benevolent and a reasonable creature (I know those are big IFs and belie that character of the one in the Bible) but according to many christians it is both benevolent and reasonable.

Which would it like better?

A whiny dependent little baby who prays to it all the time and expects it to solve all it's little problems for it and rescue it when it screws up or an independent mature adult who takes charge of their life.

Just a thought...

 

On Nov 22, 12:09 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
> assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
> to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
> Supreme Court Justice
>

>  rehabcolor.png
> 189KViewDownload

--

[Lawrey]

Trance,

Exactly! and why I am proud to be an existentialist, serving my
fellow man for love of humanity not for supplication to any
superstitious superhuman.

On Nov 23, 10:40 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Supreme Court Justice- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Nov 22, 6:45 pm, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
> What's the use of your acknowledgement of the wrong your ancestors
> did?

To prove that you, presently, have a moral compass. If you can't judge
past situations correctly, what's to think you'll judge them correctly
should they happen during your life time?

> Is that going to restore the land to the original inhabitants or
> restore the massacred Indians back to life?

Nope.

>
> One rule for you by the look of it, and one for the ancient
> Israelites.

Uh... what "rules" am I propose, exactly?

>
> What's the difference?  Both slaughtered the original inhabitants and
> both took the land.

Exactly, which, if one was bad, then the other should be bad. I notice
you avoided this point, so I'll repost it:

[Drafterman]

On Nov 22, 6:53 pm, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 11:21 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22, 7:45 am, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > The cartoon's a bit sillly.
>
> > Well.... it's a carton.
>
> > > Not too many Christians would rely on God
> > > to get rid of their extra thirty pounds,
>
> > So you disagree that there is power to prayer?
>
> If you can help yourself in a mundane matter, God expects you to do
> so.  If a Christian has blown out his credit card, then God's not
> going to put money into his bank account because God would expect the
> Christian not to make the stupid mistake in the first place.

Yet I don't doubt if there was a glitch in the software that wiped
away their debt they would (if a theist) attribute it as a miracle by
God.

>
> There can be power to prayer, but as God said through Paul, "My power
> is made perfect in (your) weakness".  This means that prayer will have
> most effect if there is nothing the person can do any more to help
> themselves.

And what if there isn't in regards to 30 pounds?

>
>
>
> > > and most Christians don't
> > > steal because they're worried about God seeing them, but because they
> > > recognise it's wrong, and basically hurts someone else.
>
> > Either God created morality or he didn't. If you believe he did then
> > the cartoon is dead on.
>
> He created morality, but the average Christian does not spend the
> whole day sweating over the occasional moral lapse, which is what the
> cartoon implies.

Which only shows that, in practical day-to-day life Christians do not
get their morality from God. Ergo God is not necessary to establish
morality. Ergo one major point of almost all theistic conceptions of
god is unnecessary.

>
>
>
> > > And when it
> > > comes to land brawls, there's usually a lot more to it than just
> > > religion.
>
> > Almost all of the Old Testamant disagrees with you
>
> How about Russia and Ossetia.  Germay, France and Alsace Lorraine.
> England, Scotland and Wales.  European colonists and Red Indians,
> Indonesia and East Timor.  Antarctica and the various national
> territories thus staked.  Turkey, Greece and Cyprus.  Tamil Tigers.
> Mussolini's Italy and Ethiopia.  The wars after Yugoslavia fell apart,
> other than Kosovo.  THe US and Mexico.  The US, Spain and the
> Phillippines.  Cuba and the US.  China and Japan vying over Korea.

13 instances. That's it? You are to suggest that a mere 13 instances
(which I haven't even really investigated to see how religion
factored, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt). In order for
this to prove your point then there could only have been 25 land
brawls in the history of humanity.

Seriously? I mean there were like 16 Crusades!

[semi]

On Nov 22, 9:24 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 11:27 am, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Or, in another sense, they were saved the same way Christians are
> > saved today, by the sacrifice of Jesus.
>
> Then, one doesn't need to believe in Jesus to be saved by the
> sacrifice of Jesus!

God demands that people believe what He currently reveals. He has
revealed Jesus as the Messiah of the world. So if you hear the gospel
and reject believing in Jesus the Christ, you can be sure of your
damnation.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Nov 23, 7:17 am, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 9:24 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 11:27 am, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Or, in another sense, they were saved the same way Christians are
> > > saved today, by the sacrifice of Jesus.
>
> > Then, one doesn't need to believe in Jesus to be saved by the
> > sacrifice of Jesus!
>
> God demands that people believe what He currently reveals. He has
> revealed Jesus as the Messiah of the world.

Where can one find "Messiah of the world" in one of his revealations?
How do we know that the revelation was authored by God?

> So if you hear the gospel and reject believing in Jesus the Christ, you can be sure of your damnation.

What happens if you reject the Gospel of Mary?

[Chris]

Lawrey, all atheists are nuttbuckets. Plain and simple.

It was a joke (kind of).

I'm praying for your salvation snifful

[Chris]

what exactly am I destroying, and how? Nuttbucket!

[Trance Gemini]

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Nov 23, 7:17 am, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:

What did God demand that the Buddha believe? (He didn't reveal the
Bible to the Buddha, so what was the Buddha required to believe?)

[Brock]

On Nov 22, 7:09 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  rehabcolor.png
> 189KViewDownload

Looks like Tom Tomorrow has got some competition. Of course, if one
wants a Christian opinion, its normally considered "looking in the
wrong place" to ask an atheist for it.

Regards,

Brock

[robin shepherd]

The title caught my eye

(God prefers atheists)

I think that ironically, there is a bit of truth to that. Like the
old issue of religious phoniness.

I happen to like having the socalled myth of the other world, it is a
great help and consolation to have this "superstition" to give me
hope, encouragement, and (in my view) inner strength. "God is an ever-
present help in time of trouble."

Yet so many prophets of different traditions have pointed out how
religious people do so much God-talk, and their actions leave much to
be desired.

For example Bonhoffer, Bertrand Russell,

As well as numerous mentions in theHebrew Bible, the gospels, etc.

I found one in Isaiah chapter one, how God hates the religious
phoniness, and prefers simple ethics, justice, compassion,

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:18 PM, robin shepherd <rs2...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The title caught my eye

(God prefers atheists)

I think that ironically, there is a bit of truth to that.  Like the
old issue of religious phoniness.

Yes, well, we see a lot of that here.

 

I happen to like having the socalled myth of the other world, it is a
great help and consolation to have this "superstition" to give me
hope, encouragement, and (in my view) inner strength.  "God is an ever-
present help in time of trouble."

Yet so many prophets of different traditions have pointed out how
religious people do so  much God-talk, and their actions leave much to
be desired.

For example Bonhoffer, Bertrand Russell,

As well as numerous mentions in theHebrew Bible, the gospels, etc.

I found one in Isaiah chapter one, how God hates the religious
phoniness, and prefers simple ethics, justice, compassion,

--

[Neil Kelsey]

On Nov 24, 3:18 pm, robin shepherd <rs2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The title caught my eye
>
> (God prefers atheists)
>
> I think that ironically, there is a bit of truth to that. Like the
> old issue of religious phoniness.
>
> I happen to like having the socalled myth of the other world, it is a
> great help and consolation to have this "superstition" to give me
> hope, encouragement, and (in my view) inner strength. "God is an ever-
> present help in time of trouble."
>
> Yet so many prophets of different traditions have pointed out how
> religious people do so much God-talk, and their actions leave much to
> be desired.
>
> For example Bonhoffer, Bertrand Russell,

Bertrand Russell? In what way was he a "prophet?"

[robin shepherd]

It has been said that numerous of the Hebrew prophets in fact
confronted the abuses of the powerful.

In other words, those socalled prophets dared to challenge the greed,
the oppressiveness of the status quo --- especially the hypocrisy of
those entrenched in power.

An Irish journalist (Peter Dunley Finne) said we ought to

AFFLICT THE COMFORTABLE

AND COMFORT THE AFFLICTED.


How can we demonize Liberation Theology for actually practicing what
they preach.

While we make excuses for corporate fat cats flying corporate jets to
Washington for their hefty dose of welfare -- after Bush caved in to
their demands for (I think) some four or five tax cuts early in his
administration.

I am not criticizing the late Bertrand Russell. He was an angry,
unhappy man. He had been raised by a relative who was a strict
biblical believer. Mostly he resented Christianity, and UK was
steeped in state-Christianity, everything was "by the Grace of God"
from the sovereign to the armed forces, to the court system,
everything was (nominally) in the name of God, deo gratia, a
theoretical theocracy.

Bertrand Russell was in intellectual rebellion, and furiously so,
against all that religious authority.

In a way, although he used a HAMMER instead of a scalpel, he surely
wasn't all wrong.

I much prefer Martin Luther King. He also was raised in a strict,
Bible-thumping, fundamentalist milieu. (Southern United States). He
also rebelled for I think about five years. He was very precocious
intellectually, very bright. He went to a small college called
Morehouse, and for a while was pretty much an atheist. However, step
by step he returned to his evangelical gospel roots. At Crozier he
immersed himself in that world. His rennaissance was a personal one,
an intellectual pilgrimage. he delighted in the bracing atmosphere.
Even today his sermons are rich reading.

Even though MLK was probably fairly orthodox, or a bit too
fundamentalist for many on this group, I truly feel he had an open-
minded approach to the Bible, and was quite open minded and alert,
intellectually. Nowadays the conservatives try to claim him as one of
their own, simply because he was adamant as far as justice, morality,
the moral arc to the universe. Those supposed anti-gay comments are
out of context, as Coretta pointed out many times. Coretta always
reminded the conservatives MLK was firmly on the side of the
oppressed, on the side of the underdog.

> > phoniness, and prefers simple ethics, justice, compassion,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Neil Kelsey]

On Nov 25, 6:02 pm, robin shepherd <rs2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It has been said that numerous of the Hebrew prophets in fact
> confronted the abuses of the powerful.

That didn't answer my question.

> In other words, those socalled prophets dared to challenge the greed,
> the oppressiveness of the status quo --- especially the hypocrisy of
> those entrenched in power.

That didn't answer my question.

> An Irish journalist (Peter Dunley Finne) said we ought to
>
> AFFLICT THE COMFORTABLE
>
> AND COMFORT THE AFFLICTED.

That didn't answer my question.

> How can we demonize Liberation Theology for actually practicing what
> they preach.

That didn't answer my question.

> While we make excuses for corporate fat cats flying corporate jets to
> Washington for their hefty dose of welfare -- after Bush caved in to
> their demands for (I think) some four or five tax cuts early in his
> administration.

That didn't answer my question.

> I am not criticizing the late Bertrand Russell. He was an angry,
> unhappy man. He had been raised by a relative who was a strict
> biblical believer.  Mostly he resented Christianity, and UK was
> steeped in state-Christianity, everything was "by the Grace of God"
> from the sovereign to the armed forces, to the court system,
> everything was (nominally) in the name of God, deo gratia, a
> theoretical theocracy.
>
> Bertrand Russell was in intellectual rebellion, and furiously so,
> against all that religious authority.

That didn't answer my question, but at least you mentioned the name
"Bertrand Russell."

By the way, are you familiar with the term "argumentum ad hominem?"

> In a way, although he used a HAMMER instead of a scalpel, he surely
> wasn't all wrong.

That didn't answer my question. Since you're about to abandon even
mentioning his name, I'll ask you again. Maybe I'll capitalize it in
hopes it might get your attention:

IN WHAT WAY WAS BERTRAND RUSSELL A "PROPHET?"

> I much prefer Martin Luther King.
> He also was raised in a strict,
> Bible-thumping, fundamentalist milieu. (Southern United States). He
> also rebelled for I think about five years. He was very precocious
> intellectually, very bright. He went to a small college called
> Morehouse, and for a while was pretty much an atheist.
> However, step
> by step he returned to his evangelical gospel roots.  At Crozier he
> immersed himself in that world.  His rennaissance was a personal one,
> an intellectual pilgrimage. he delighted in the bracing atmosphere.
> Even today his sermons are rich reading.

That didn't answer my question.

> Even though MLK was probably fairly orthodox, or a bit too
> fundamentalist for many on this group, I truly feel he had an open-
> minded approach to the Bible, and was quite open minded and alert,
> intellectually.  Nowadays the conservatives try to claim him as one of
> their own, simply because he was adamant as far as justice, morality,
> the moral arc to the universe.  Those supposed anti-gay comments are
> out of context, as Coretta pointed out many times. Coretta always
> reminded the conservatives MLK was firmly on the side of the
> oppressed, on the side of the underdog.

That didn't answer my question.

[robin shepherd]

To Neil K.

You and I seem to be talking about different things. Why do you attack
Bertrand Russell? What is your issue with Russell's wide ranging
discussion? Is a prophet somehow super human? Are prophets somehow
descended on a space ship?

I consider any prophet to be essentially my equal. He is human, and
all things human are germane. (My point of view).
Russell was at Cambridge long before Wittgenstein. And of course
Russell had peerfect diction (in English), though in Austria he would
have been at a loss, vis-a-vis his friend Wittgenstein.

How could I discuss anyone, knowing nothing of what he says of
himself, or those close to him say about him. How do people
pontificate about jesus, yet will not expend the effort or energy to
learn the first thing about the nation (people) from which he
came ...... or the period of time, the hellenistic eastern
Mediterreanean of the early Roman Empire.

You present yourself as intelligent, (or puffed up) you talk down (so
it seems) as if you are the Grand Inquisitor. Only your questions
matter. Why would you dodge my discussion, evading the obvious
(questions) contained in my discussion. Why is that?

(My advice, I take this advice my self --- open your mind a little.
Listen. Genuinely listen.
Learn --- even from the fundies, even from Bertrand Russell)

[Neil Kelsey]

On Nov 26, 1:17 pm, robin shepherd <rs2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To Neil K.
>
> You and I seem to be talking about different things.

Show me how asking you a question ("In what way is Bertrand Russell a
prophet?") is the same as talking about something. It's a question,
not a statement.

> Why do you attack
> Bertrand Russell?

Show me where I attacked Bertrand Russell. Ever.

> What is your issue with Russell's wide ranging
> discussion?

Why would you think I have an issue with Bertrand Russell?

> Is a prophet somehow super human?

What does that have to do with Bertrand Russell? I guess we've
returned to my original question. Let's consult a dictionary, shall
we?

prophet (from dictionary.com)

1. a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.
2. (in the Old Testament) a. a person chosen to speak for God and to
guide the people of Israel: Moses was the greatest of Old Testament
prophets.
b. (often initial capital letter) one of the Major or Minor Prophets.
c. one of a band of ecstatic visionaries claiming divine inspiration
and, according to popular belief, possessing magical powers.
d. a person who practices divination.

3. one of a class of persons in the early church, next in order after
the apostles, recognized as inspired to utter special revelations and
predictions. 1 Cor. 12:28.
4. the Prophet, Muhammad, the founder of Islam.
5. a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or
leader.
6. a person who foretells or predicts what is to come: a weather
prophet; prophets of doom.
7. a spokesperson of some doctrine, cause, or movement

End of dictionary definition.

It seems that all the definitions of the word "prophet" are religious
constructs, except (possibly) definition #7.

Bertrand Russell was a screaming atheist and would straighten you out
right quick if he were alive and you were associating him with
religion when you called him a "prophet." Hence my question:

IN WHAT SENSE IS BERTRAND RUSSELL A PROPHET?

You may choose from the dictionary list above.

> Are prophets somehow
> descended on a space ship?

My impression is prophets magically hear the voice of God. Descending
on a spaceship would be a more rational explanation.

> I consider any prophet to be essentially my equal.

Question: do youconsider any prophet to be essentially MY equal, too?

> He is human, and
> all things human are germane.  (My point of view).
> Russell was at Cambridge long before Wittgenstein.  And of course
> Russell had peerfect diction (in English), though in Austria he would
> have been at a loss, vis-a-vis his friend Wittgenstein.

Gee, thanks for the biography. Too bad you ignored the part about
Bertrand Russell being an atheist.

> How could I discuss anyone, knowing nothing of what he says of
> himself, or those close to him say about him. How do people
> pontificate about jesus, yet will not expend the effort or energy to
> learn the first thing about the nation (people) from which he
> came ......  or the period of time, the hellenistic eastern
> Mediterreanean of the early Roman Empire.

Your geniusness must be so lonely. Woe is you.

> You present yourself as intelligent, (or puffed up) you talk down (so
> it seems) as if you are the Grand Inquisitor.

Maybe it has more to do with the fact you're avoiding my simple
question. I can look bad by myself, I don't need your help.

> Only your questions
> matter.

Correction: question.

> Why would you dodge my discussion, evading the obvious
> (questions) contained in my discussion.

So now you're blaming me for the fact that you were unclear. You
called Bertrand Russell a "prophet;" the dictionary and his iography
contradicts your claim, so I'm asking you to clarify what you meant.
When you finally get around to doing that, then we can proceed with
your other claims.

> Why is that?
>
> (My advice, I take this advice my self --- open your mind a little.
> Listen. Genuinely listen.
> Learn --- even from the fundies, even from Bertrand Russell)

Ummmm...listening does not seem like one of your strong suits. Do you
constantly hear laughter whenever you leave a room?

I asked you a simple non-threatening question several times and you
are doing everything in your power to avoid answering it and
everything in your power to make it seem like it's my fault for
asking.

And by the way, Bertrand Russell is my favourite philosopher of all
time and one of my favourite writers, period. I have read his essay
"Why I Am Not A Christian" about half a dozen times now, and I never
get tired of it.

Thanks for the lecture though, Dad. Can I have the car tonight?