OT: Las Vegas shooter--Atheist millionaire

[r3p...@gmail.com]

So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.

Ray

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:22:06 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
>
>Ray

Cite who made that claim.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
>
> Ray

Don't forget: Christians don't murder.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

People like yourself, many times.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?

Anyway, plenty of Christians murder. The whole basis of Christianity is the idea that everyone is a sinner in need of forgiveness. So the commission of a sin is not the basis for excluding anyone from the umbrella of Christianity. Jesus hung out with the whores and tax collectors, not the sancimonious Pharisees... that wasn't an accident, it was a message.

And PS: who is or is not a Christian, and who is or is not a sinner? That's for GOD to judge, not you. I may be an atheist, but I stuck out Sunday School long enough to know that one.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?
>
> Anyway, plenty of Christians murder.

All you have to do is provide one instance and I'm refuted. Be advised that secular persons contend the Inquisitors were murdering Christians, but I refuted that claim to the point that no secular person here has ever said it since.

Ray

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Oct 02, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<31cf218b-e254-4b04...@googlegroups.com>):

excellent. You’ll have no problems naming one, and giving the time and
place, so that your claim can be verified.
>
>
> Ray

[Sean Dillon]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:15:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
> > > >
> > > > Ray
> > >
> > > Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?
> >
> > Anyway, plenty of Christians murder.
>
> All you have to do is provide one instance and I'm refuted. Be advised that secular persons contend the Inquisitors were murdering Christians, but I refuted that claim to the point that no secular person here has ever said it since.
>
> Ray

I can provide a never-ending laundry list of Christian murderers, but if anyone who commits murder is (a priori) not a Christian, then this is a futile exercise.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Everyone is a sinner. And your comment above says a Christian identity claim is exempt from normal evidentiary requirements. Simply absurd. The Bible provides many ways to determine who is, or who is not, following Christ. For example: Does Christ lead persons to accept naturalistic or super naturalistic assumptions about nature?

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 8:25:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:15:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray
> > > >
> > > > Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
> > > >
> > > > Ray
> > >
> > > Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?
> > >
> > > Anyway, plenty of Christians murder.
> >
> > All you have to do is provide one instance and I'm refuted. Be advised that secular persons contend the Inquisitors were murdering Christians, but I refuted that claim to the point that no secular person here has ever said it since.
> >
> > Ray
>
> I can provide a never-ending laundry list of Christian murderers, but if anyone who commits murder is (a priori) not a Christian, then this is a futile exercise.
>

You can provide no such list; one cannot say one was following Christ while committing murder. While committing murder one is not following Christ.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Glad to see you're not attempting to deny the fact that affluent secular people commit mass murder.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 6:25:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
>
> Ray

But let's not lose site of this claim.

I don't care about the millionaire bit... that's irrelevant.

What's the evidence that this guy is an atheist? That he, in fact, believes that no gods exist?

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Until you identify a religious affiliation, the shooter remains an Atheist.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

The Bible tells us that anyone ATTEMPTING to follow the path of Christ (however imperfectly) is a Christian. And the Bible says that, YES -- in fact -- membership in the club that is Christianity is not based on human judgement of evidence, but on GOD'S judgement of evidence.

And if you read what Jesus is supposed to actually have done and said, based on the gospels (accounts) by the people who even MIGHT have met him, his message was all about how to treat people, not about the metaphysics of the universe. Take the Sermon on the Mount... the highest profile platform the Guy ever had. Did he spend ONE MOMENT on the metaphysical nature of the universe?

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Oct 02, r3p...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<138219ac-5c0a-4983...@googlegroups.com>):

nope. That’s a fact, confirmed over and over many times. However, what is
NOT a fact is that anyone has ever said that ‘affluent secular people
don’t commit mass murder. You said that someone made such a claim. When
called on it, you doubled down and said that ‘people’ had made such
claims ‘many times’.You have failed to provide even one example of the
‘people’ or the ‘many times’. Instead, you have deliberately and with
malice aforethought attempted to sidestep the question. All that you’re
doing is to demonstrate (again!) that you are a deliberate and totally
unrepentant purveyor of falsehoods.
>
>
> Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Sorry chief, but that's not how reality works. Atheism is an affirmative position, not a default position.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Not true. Atheism is not affirmative or positive, but negative as seen in NO gods exist, rephrase: gods or theos or theism NOT true. No and not are negative.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

I'm glad you're not denying, don't mind being "wrong."

Ray

[Rolf]

<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5874e171-830c-4a57...@googlegroups.com...

But the person is free to take a short leave from following Christ before
and after then act, isn't he/she? God forgives a repenting sinner, or?

What does it mean, "to follow Christ"?

[Rolf]

<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb41982b-ac60-43e0...@googlegroups.com...

Christ doesn't lead anyone. Believers make up whatever features they desire
their idols to possess.
It's like you walk behind a horse; he's not a leader, but you are his
follower.
Super naturalistic assumptions about nature is a genuine Christian exercise.

Atheists understand science and reject Christian superstition and denial of
scientific facts.
Christians are lost in religious speculation based on the superstition
learned from ancient fairytales.
And Gnostics laugh at them all, like they did even before the myth of
Jesus-Christ was invented. The Gospels are fiction adopted from the Egyptian
Osiris/Bacchus myths, not facts.

But the mind of the Christian fanatic is closed.

Rolf


> Ray
>
>

[jillery]

By your definition.

[jillery]

Cite chapter, verse, and Bible where that question came from.

[jillery]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 06:20:29 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>> > > The whole basis of Christianity is the idea that everyone is a sinner
>>> > > in need of forgiveness. So the commission of a sin is not the basis
>>> > > for excluding anyone from the umbrella of Christianity. Jesus hung
>>> > > out with the whores and tax collectors, not the sancimonious
>>> > > Pharisees... that wasn't an accident, it was a message.
>>> > >
>>> > > And PS: who is or is not a Christian, and who is or is not a sinner?
>>> > > That's for GOD to judge, not you. I may be an atheist, but I stuck
>>> > > out Sunday School long enough to know that one.

Apparently Ray is talking about fair-weather Christians, who wear
their faith like a hat; take it off when they do some sinnin', and put
it on when they repent... until the next time.

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:07:22 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:22:06 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
>> >
>> >Ray
>>
>>
>> Cite who made that claim.
>>
>

>People like yourself, many times.

Since by definition I am a "people like myself", you should have no
problem citing where I have made that claim. Don't be insulted that I
don't wait for you to do so.

[Robert Camp]

On 10/2/17 8:13 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit
>>>> mass murder.
>>>>
>>>> Ray
>>>
>>> Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because
>> Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you
>> calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of
>> any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the
>> rest of us aren't up on?
>>
>> Anyway, plenty of Christians murder.
>
> All you have to do is provide one instance and I'm refuted. Be
> advised that secular persons contend the Inquisitors were murdering
> Christians, but I refuted that claim to the point that no secular
> person here has ever said it since.

People have said it more than twice; count me among them. No one has
been deterred in the slightest by your sophomoric, No-True-Scotsman
arguments.

Your really do have difficulty accessing reality, Ray, and I'd urge you
once again to seek professional help.

[Ernest Major]

On 03/10/2017 04:34, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 8:25:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:15:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ray
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ray
>>>>
>>>> Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, plenty of Christians murder.
>>>
>>> All you have to do is provide one instance and I'm refuted. Be advised that secular persons contend the Inquisitors were murdering Christians, but I refuted that claim to the point that no secular person here has ever said it since.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> I can provide a never-ending laundry list of Christian murderers, but if anyone who commits murder is (a priori) not a Christian, then this is a futile exercise.
>>
>
> You can provide no such list; one cannot say one was following Christ while committing murder. While committing murder one is not following Christ.

You were strangely reluctant to say that Calvin wasn't a Christian.

>
> Ray
>
>
>
>>>
>>>> The whole basis of Christianity is the idea that everyone is a sinner in need of forgiveness. So the commission of a sin is not the basis for excluding anyone from the umbrella of Christianity. Jesus hung out with the whores and tax collectors, not the sancimonious Pharisees... that wasn't an accident, it was a message.
>>>>
>>>> And PS: who is or is not a Christian, and who is or is not a sinner? That's for GOD to judge, not you. I may be an atheist, but I stuck out Sunday School long enough to know that one.
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

So, you are now claiming that the Inquisitors were Christian?
>
> Ray
>
>


--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

On 03/10/2017 03:30, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
>>
>> Ray
>
> Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?

According to press reports his brother has been claiming that he was a
multi-millionaire with no religious or political affiliation; unless Ray
has a different source the athiest is Ray's spin.

>
> Anyway, plenty of Christians murder. The whole basis of Christianity is the idea that everyone is a sinner in need of forgiveness. So the commission of a sin is not the basis for excluding anyone from the umbrella of Christianity. Jesus hung out with the whores and tax collectors, not the sancimonious Pharisees... that wasn't an accident, it was a message.
>
> And PS: who is or is not a Christian, and who is or is not a sinner? That's for GOD to judge, not you. I may be an atheist, but I stuck out Sunday School long enough to know that one.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

I had been giving you the benefit of the doubt; that you were
overinterpreting press reports. But here you appear to have admitted
making up the claim.

Why is murder the sin that stops you being a Christian? Why not advocacy
of mass murder? Why not theft, or libel?

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

Let's examine Ray's behaviour here in a clinical manner:

1)He makes the claim that the killer is "an atheist millionaire'

When asked for evidence he refuses, because he can't give that
evidence.

2)Sean Dillon makes the perfectly true statement that some christians
kill,

Ray asks instantly for one example.

I think it would be impossible to find any alienist the length and
breadth of the US who would be prepared to vouch for Ray's sanity.

Have fun,


Joe Cummings

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Oct 03, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<2d1182cf-ec31-41a4...@googlegroups.com>):

and still can’t support your statement. It’s not that you’re wrong,
it’s that you’re an unrepentant liar.
>
>
> Ray

[raven1]

Unsurprised to see that you can't provide a source for your assertion.

[raven1]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 20:28:06 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
>> > >
>> > > Ray
>> >
>> > Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
>> >
>> > Ray
>>
>> Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?
>>
>> Anyway, plenty of Christians murder. The whole basis of Christianity is the idea that everyone is a sinner in need of forgiveness. So the commission of a sin is not the basis for excluding anyone from the umbrella of Christianity. Jesus hung out with the whores and tax collectors, not the sancimonious Pharisees... that wasn't an accident, it was a message.
>>
>> And PS: who is or is not a Christian, and who is or is not a sinner? That's for GOD to judge, not you. I may be an atheist, but I stuck out Sunday School long enough to know that one.
>>
>
>Everyone is a sinner.

Are people who sin following Christ? You really can't see the
implications of your own arguments, can you?

[raven1]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 20:34:59 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 8:25:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:15:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ray
>> > > >
>> > > > Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
>> > > >
>> > > > Ray
>> > >
>> > > Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?
>> > >
>> > > Anyway, plenty of Christians murder.
>> >
>> > All you have to do is provide one instance and I'm refuted. Be advised that secular persons contend the Inquisitors were murdering Christians, but I refuted that claim to the point that no secular person here has ever said it since.
>> >
>> > Ray
>>
>> I can provide a never-ending laundry list of Christian murderers, but if anyone who commits murder is (a priori) not a Christian, then this is a futile exercise.
>>
>
>You can provide no such list; one cannot say one was following Christ while committing murder. While committing murder one is not following Christ.

Will ye put the bloody bagpipes down, laddie? I canna hear a word yer
sayin'.

[raven1]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:09:03 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
>>
>> Ray
>
>Don't forget: Christians don't murder.

Please pass the haggis, Ray.

[jillery]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 11:16:50 +0200, joecummin...@gmail.com
wrote:

To demand from others what they refuse to provide themselves is the
hallmark of IDio... \b\b\b\b... Cdesign proponentists. It illustrates
their moral destitution.

[Sean Dillon]

You misunderstand. Atheism means that I believe (affirmatively) that no gods exist. A lack of specific religious affiliation is not sufficient to label someone an atheist.

[Sean Dillon]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:30:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
> > > >
> > > > Ray
> > >

> > > Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
> > >

> > > Ray
> >
> > Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?
> >

> > Anyway, plenty of Christians murder. The whole basis of Christianity is the idea that everyone is a sinner in need of forgiveness. So the commission of a sin is not the basis for excluding anyone from the umbrella of Christianity. Jesus hung out with the whores and tax collectors, not the sancimonious Pharisees... that wasn't an accident, it was a message.

> >
> > And PS: who is or is not a Christian, and who is or is not a sinner? That's for GOD to judge, not you. I may be an atheist, but I stuck out Sunday School long enough to know that one.
> >
>

> Everyone is a sinner. And your comment above says a Christian identity claim is exempt from normal evidentiary requirements. Simply absurd. The Bible provides many ways to determine who is, or who is not, following Christ. For example: Does Christ lead persons to accept naturalistic or super naturalistic assumptions about nature?
>
> Ray

Tell me something Ray: You say that everyone is a sinner. That necessarily includes you. You, Ray, are a sinner. And a sinner is one who sins. So you, Ray, sin. When you, Ray, are sinning, do you cease to be a Christian? Do you become an atheist?

[Rolf]

"Sean Dillon" <seand...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:391830b2-2bb9-4763...@googlegroups.com...

If it wasn't for the lack of a god, atheism would be the perfect religion.

Rolf

[Rolf]

"Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:or0a8f$pu4$1...@news.albasani.net...

Problem solved:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbxD04LWW10

Rolf


>
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:09:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:

>On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.

Who made such a claim? Cite to the actual claim, please; no
"many people" welcome.

>Don't forget: Christians don't murder.

Yet another round of bagpipes...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_B%C3%A9ziers

Arnaud Amalric would probably disagree, although like you he
probably wouldn't consider killing suspected heretics by
Christians to be "murder"; more like killing rats.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 20:34:58 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 6:25:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
>>

>> Ray
>
>But let's not lose site of this claim.
>
>I don't care about the millionaire bit... that's irrelevant.
>
>What's the evidence that this guy is an atheist? That he, in fact, believes that no gods exist?

As is the case with anyone here who disagrees with Ray, it's
by decree.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 20:13:57 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:

>On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:

<snip>

>> Anyway, plenty of Christians murder.

>All you have to do is provide one instance and I'm refuted.

Happy to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_B%C3%A9ziers

Is the Papal legate (the Abbot of Citeaux, Arnaud Amalric)
Christian enough for you?

>Be advised that secular persons contend the Inquisitors were murdering Christians, but I refuted that claim to the point that no secular person here has ever said it since.

You did no such thing; as is your usual tactic, you ignored
it when you could and shifted the goalposts when you
couldn't. You'll probably attempt to shift them in this
thread.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 20:34:59 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:

>...one cannot say one was following Christ while committing murder. While committing murder one is not following Christ.

"Oh Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling..."

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 20:55:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:50:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 8:40:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 6:25:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
>> > >
>> > > Ray
>> >
>> > But let's not lose site of this claim.
>> >
>> > I don't care about the millionaire bit... that's irrelevant.
>> >
>> > What's the evidence that this guy is an atheist? That he, in fact, believes that no gods exist?
>>

>> Until you identify a religious affiliation, the shooter remains an Atheist.

>Sorry chief, but that's not how reality works. Atheism is an affirmative position, not a default position.

Well, that's OK then, since Ray has affirmed that the
shooter was an atheist. :-(

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 08:54:43 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com>:

>On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 20:28:06 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
>>> > >
>>> > > Ray
>>> >
>>> > Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
>>> >
>>> > Ray
>>>
>>> Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?
>>>
>>> Anyway, plenty of Christians murder. The whole basis of Christianity is the idea that everyone is a sinner in need of forgiveness. So the commission of a sin is not the basis for excluding anyone from the umbrella of Christianity. Jesus hung out with the whores and tax collectors, not the sancimonious Pharisees... that wasn't an accident, it was a message.
>>>
>>> And PS: who is or is not a Christian, and who is or is not a sinner? That's for GOD to judge, not you. I may be an atheist, but I stuck out Sunday School long enough to know that one.
>>>
>>
>>Everyone is a sinner.
>
>Are people who sin following Christ? You really can't see the
>implications of your own arguments, can you?

He never has been able to; why would he start now?

>>And your comment above says a Christian identity claim is exempt from normal evidentiary requirements. Simply absurd. The Bible provides many ways to determine who is, or who is not, following Christ. For example: Does Christ lead persons to accept naturalistic or super naturalistic assumptions about nature?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:24:12 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

And "covet". God is pretty strong on "covet"; unlike murder,
which was only mentioned in one Commandment, covet was
mentioned in two.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 06:13:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 11:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:00:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:50:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 8:40:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> > > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 6:25:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ray
>> > > >
>> > > > But let's not lose site of this claim.
>> > > >
>> > > > I don't care about the millionaire bit... that's irrelevant.
>> > > >
>> > > > What's the evidence that this guy is an atheist? That he, in fact, believes that no gods exist?
>> > >
>> > > Until you identify a religious affiliation, the shooter remains an Atheist.
>> > >
>> > > Ray
>> >
>> > Sorry chief, but that's not how reality works. Atheism is an affirmative position, not a default position.
>> >
>>
>> Not true. Atheism is not affirmative or positive, but negative as seen in NO gods exist, rephrase: gods or theos or theism NOT true. No and not are negative.

>You misunderstand. Atheism means that I believe (affirmatively) that no gods exist. A lack of specific religious affiliation is not sufficient to label someone an atheist.

Ray has never understood the meaning of "atheist"; he thinks
that deists and unaffiliated theists are "atheists", as are
Jesuits and anyone who accepts scientific evidence which
contradicts Ray's interpretation of the Bible.

[Mike Franklin]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:15:03 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:

> You misunderstand. Atheism means that I believe (affirmatively) that no gods exist. A lack of specific religious affiliation is not sufficient to label someone an atheist.

If you yourself are an atheist, and I can't tell from your post if you are identifying yourself as one or are speaking hypothetically, then you are the first atheist I have encountered, on the internet or anywhere else, that uses that definition of "atheism".

Atheists typically, and by "typically" I mean "every single instance in my experience", define "atheism" as "lack of belief in any god". The belief that no gods exist is commonly labeled "strong atheism".

Defining "atheism" the way you did is a tactic often used by theists attacking the atheist position, because then the theist can claim that both sides are asserting something without evidence.

As an atheist myself, I'm curious to know whether you self-identify as an atheist. If you do, then you'll be the first one I've encountered to define "atheism" the way you do, which is fine, of course, but then I'll have to stop saying that all atheists define "atheism" a certain way.

This post is in no way intended as support of anything Ray might have written- he continues to be wrong about everything.

Mike

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 11:40:02 PM UTC-4, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 8:25:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:

> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:15:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ray
> > > > >

> > > > > Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray
> > > >
> > > > Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, plenty of Christians murder.
> > >

> > > All you have to do is provide one instance and I'm refuted. Be advised that secular persons contend the Inquisitors were murdering Christians, but I refuted that claim

... by falsely implying that capital punishment is murder,
a claim you picked up from the secularists and which is not
only non-Biblical, it is ANTI-Biblical.

And so, you may have been guilty of blasphemy when you claimed
that the NT called the Inquisitors murderers. You have run
away every time you were called upon to defend this claim
of yours.

The last time I called your attention to this anti-Biblical claim
was yesterday, on a thread to which you haven't posted in the last
two days:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/LzsKeieXG0o/YvxT-VvBAQAJ
Subject: Re: Ray Martinez's Idea of a Refutation of Evolution
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 08:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1de83b5a-e375-4200...@googlegroups.com>

Bob Casanova called your attention the day after your last post,
to many times that it seems you took God's name in vain.

Are you going to abandon that thread like you have so many others,
and start a new one where you repeat the same old falsehoods
while pretending that they haven't been dealt with?

> to the point that no secular person here has ever said it since.

Of course not. You catered to them by agreeing that capital
punishment is murder.

> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > I can provide a never-ending laundry list of Christian murderers, but if anyone who commits murder is (a priori) not a Christian, then this is a futile exercise.
> >
>

> You can provide no such list; one cannot say one was following Christ
> while committing murder.

Please explain what you mean by "following Christ." If a person is having
lunch without saying grace beforehand, is that person "not following
Christ" by your definition?

And if a person says horses "evolved" from *Hyracotherium*, without
denying that God moved the "evolution" along by causing various
mutations along the way, is that person "not following Christ"?

And if he is "not following Christ," does that mean he ceases
to be a Christian while (in the first case) eating lunch, and
(in the second case) making the statement about horses?

There are many other such examples. For instance, if one passes
by a panhandler without giving him any money, is that person
"not following Christ" and thereby ceasing to be a Christian
until the panhandler is out of sight?

> While committing murder one is not following Christ.
>

> Ray

You've used this dodge before, producing the concept of a "strobelight"
Christian. The light goes off whenever one "isn't following Christ"
and comes back on once that that action is over. Is that your
idea of what being a Christian is like?

If not, then why are you so cavalier about not following Christ's
commandment "Do not bear false witness." ? It would seem that
you are in the state of being a non-Christian by failing
to reply to the post I've linked above, where I thoroughly
refuted your perennial false claim that I am an Atheist
according to YOUR definition.

[The part about the NT, murder and Inquisitors was restored at the end
because you had deleted it and lied that it was a part of "coils of
nonsense."]

> > >
> > > > The whole basis of Christianity is the idea that everyone is a sinner in need of forgiveness. So the commission of a sin is not the basis for excluding anyone from the umbrella of Christianity.

You never did answer this directly, and so I hereby charge
you with introducing the heresy of "strobelight Christianity".

How do you plead? nolo contendere, perhaps?

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 10:43:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 20:34:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:
>
>>...one cannot say one was following Christ while committing murder. While committing murder one is not following Christ.
>
>"Oh Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling..."

Umm... pedantically, Danny boy is Irish. No true Scotsman would be
named "Danny".

[Sean Dillon]

Second attempt at posting... the last one didn't seem to take.

I am in fact an atheist... a strong one, per your terminology.

I think it is sort of a question of branding... atheists tend to like to define it broadly, because that puts more people in the tent. Anti-atheists, just the opposite.

For me (and this is just me), I don't think one is properly an atheist unless one has considered the question and taken a position. If you have never entertained the question, then I don't think you really bear a label. I don't carry the label of a-X-ist for every X I've never considered the possibility of. For instance, I'm not an aflooberist, because I have no idea what a floober even is, and so I have no relationship to the question. And if you've entertained the question but have no opinion, I think you're mostly aptly described as indifferent, not atheistic.

To me, atheism IS a belief position. It isn't a religion, but it is a religious position that one holds, with no way of proving or assuring that one is correct... just as theism is.

I don't like using the label more broadly as merely lacking belief in a god, because this gives the impression that anything that doesn't explicitly include theism is thereby pro-atheism.

My lunch contains no referent to God? Well then that lunch is atheistic.
My job contains no referent to God? Well then my job is atheistic.
Sciences contains no referent to God? Well then science is atheistic.

And I reject that, because neither my lunch nor my job nor science has any relationship to the question of god's/gods' existence. So... that's why I like to keep the definition narrow.

Ultimately, there isn't one "right" way to use the term, as long as there is a common understanding of the meaning intended. I recognize that, for example, American Atheists explicitly prefers your definition.

That said, the shooter cannot (at least at this juncture) be confidently labelled an atheist by EITHER definition, since we simply have no idea what his beliefs or lack of beliefs are, regarding the existence or not of God.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 12:45:03 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 8:50:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:

> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:30:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ray
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray
> > > >
> > > > Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?
> > > >

> > > > Anyway, plenty of Christians murder. The whole basis of Christianity is the idea that everyone is a sinner in need of forgiveness. So the commission of a sin is not the basis for excluding anyone from the umbrella of Christianity. Jesus hung out with the whores and tax collectors, not the sancimonious Pharisees... that wasn't an accident, it was a message.

> > > >
> > > > And PS: who is or is not a Christian, and who is or is not a sinner? That's for GOD to judge, not you. I may be an atheist, but I stuck out Sunday School long enough to know that one.
> > > >
> > >

> > > Everyone is a sinner. And your comment above says a Christian identity claim is exempt from normal evidentiary requirements. Simply absurd. The Bible provides many ways to determine who is, or who is not, following Christ. For example: Does Christ lead persons to accept naturalistic or super naturalistic assumptions about nature?
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > The Bible tells us that anyone ATTEMPTING to follow the path of Christ (however imperfectly) is a Christian.
> >
>
> Generally true.
>
> And when generalities give way to specifics one can see more clearly as to who is following Christ and who is not. I gave a specific example, or criteria, above. One cannot say Christ has led them to accept naturalistic assumptions about natural reality; that is, assumptions that say the Father of Christ did not design or create any living thing, past or present. Sean and his supporters have consistently evaded and avoided answering this specific criteria.
>
> >
> And the Bible says that, YES -- in fact -- membership in the club that is Christianity is not based on human judgement of evidence, but on GOD'S judgement of evidence.
> >
>
> There's a string of truth running in the statement above but the main cords are false. Christian identity claims are not exempt from normal evidentiary requirements.
>
> > And if you read what Jesus is supposed to actually have done and said, based on the gospels (accounts) by the people who even MIGHT have met him, his message was all about how to treat people, not about the metaphysics of the universe. Take the Sermon on the Mount... the highest profile platform the Guy ever had. Did he spend ONE MOMENT on the metaphysical nature of the universe?
> >
>
> What we have here is a stereotypical false secular understanding of New Testament Christianity.
>
> When Jesus taught on how to treat people He was talking as the Perfect Man, having never committed any sin; so the standard He taught far exceeded the standards found in the Old Testament. The standard taught by Christ is NOT attainable because it's anchored in the heart and mind. To even think or desire to hate or kill or fornicate equates to a violation of the standard. Thus, like I said, the standard is unattainable. No one can avoid thinking about or desiring fornication, killing, or hating. Christ and God are well aware of this fact.
>
> The OTHER message that Christ taught was to receive Him by faith, which is the gospel or good news: God will accept faith and faith alone, and not compliance to a code of conduct, as the exclusive way to relate to Him and obtain salvation.
>
> So we have TWO distinct messages preached by Christ. The former message is attainable, unlike the latter. ***The main intent of the former is drive us to the latter.*** The New Testament goes on to say that IF the latter message is pursued and practiced then eventually Christ-in-us will perform the former message----hence, the famous testimony one hears from so many converts: Christ changed my heart.
>

MAJOR ERROR: Should have said:

"The latter message is attainable, unlike the former. ***The main intent of the former is drive us to the latter.***"

Ray


> The point here is that secular people wrongly think Christianity is about compliance to a code of conduct via the will or self-control----IT IS NOT. Christianity is about the life of faith, which then enables the Resurrected Christ to live in our hearts and change us miraculously from within so compliance to the code of conduct is accomplished without even trying.
>
> The other point concerning Sean's point is that Christ's code of conduct standard does not, as Sean said, rule out His Father as Designer or Creator. Those claims are repeated elsewhere throughout the Bible.
>
> Ray

[Sean Dillon]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:45:03 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 8:50:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:30:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ray
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray
> > > >
> > > > Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, plenty of Christians murder. The whole basis of Christianity is the idea that everyone is a sinner in need of forgiveness. So the commission of a sin is not the basis for excluding anyone from the umbrella of Christianity. Jesus hung out with the whores and tax collectors, not the sancimonious Pharisees... that wasn't an accident, it was a message.
> > > >
> > > > And PS: who is or is not a Christian, and who is or is not a sinner? That's for GOD to judge, not you. I may be an atheist, but I stuck out Sunday School long enough to know that one.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Everyone is a sinner. And your comment above says a Christian identity claim is exempt from normal evidentiary requirements. Simply absurd. The Bible provides many ways to determine who is, or who is not, following Christ. For example: Does Christ lead persons to accept naturalistic or super naturalistic assumptions about nature?
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > The Bible tells us that anyone ATTEMPTING to follow the path of Christ (however imperfectly) is a Christian.
> >
>
> Generally true.
>
> And when generalities give way to specifics one can see more clearly as to who is following Christ and who is not. I gave a specific example, or criteria, above. One cannot say Christ has led them to accept naturalistic assumptions about natural reality; that is, assumptions that say the Father of Christ did not design or create any living thing, past or present. Sean and his supporters have consistently evaded and avoided answering this specific criteria.

I haven't evaded it... I've stated it is bullshit, because you're small imagination can only conceive of one WAY that God could have designed or created the living aspect of His Creation. It is entirely possible (and entirely compatible with science), that natural evolution may be the MEANS by which God chose to enact the diversity of life, just as natural gravity is the way He chose to cause matter itself to coalesce into planets and stars. Only a small mind struggles with this possibility... that the entirety of Nature ITSELF could be by God's intent. Hell... that's the entire basis of the fine-tuning argument for God's existence.

>
> >
> And the Bible says that, YES -- in fact -- membership in the club that is Christianity is not based on human judgement of evidence, but on GOD'S judgement of evidence.
> >
>
> There's a string of truth running in the statement above but the main cords are false. Christian identity claims are not exempt from normal evidentiary requirements.

The point is, you aren't qualified to judge that evidence, because you are missing the biggest pieces OF evidence: what is within the hearts and minds of others.

>
> > And if you read what Jesus is supposed to actually have done and said, based on the gospels (accounts) by the people who even MIGHT have met him, his message was all about how to treat people, not about the metaphysics of the universe. Take the Sermon on the Mount... the highest profile platform the Guy ever had. Did he spend ONE MOMENT on the metaphysical nature of the universe?
> >
>
> What we have here is a stereotypical false secular understanding of New Testament Christianity.
>
> When Jesus taught on how to treat people He was talking as the Perfect Man, having never committed any sin; so the standard He taught far exceeded the standards found in the Old Testament. The standard taught by Christ is NOT attainable because it's anchored in the heart and mind. To even think or desire to hate or kill or fornicate equates to a violation of the standard. Thus, like I said, the standard is unattainable. No one can avoid thinking about or desiring fornication, killing, or hating. Christ and God are well aware of this fact.
>
> The OTHER message that Christ taught was to receive Him by faith, which is the gospel or good news: God will accept faith and faith alone, and not compliance to a code of conduct, as the exclusive way to relate to Him and obtain salvation.
>
> So we have TWO distinct messages preached by Christ. The former message is attainable, unlike the latter. ***The main intent of the former is drive us to the latter.*** The New Testament goes on to say that IF the latter message is pursued and practiced then eventually Christ-in-us will perform the former message----hence, the famous testimony one hears from so many converts: Christ changed my heart.
>

> The point here is that secular people wrongly think Christianity is about compliance to a code of conduct via the will or self-control----IT IS NOT. Christianity is about the life of faith, which then enables the Resurrected Christ to live in our hearts and change us miraculously from within so compliance to the code of conduct is accomplished without even trying.
>
> The other point concerning Sean's point is that Christ's code of conduct standard does not, as Sean said, rule out His Father as Designer or Creator. Those claims are repeated elsewhere throughout the Bible.
>
> Ray

The point is, Roy, He didn't spend His time talking about the metaphysical nature of the universe. Apparently that information was so unimportant to the Christian message that it didn't even rate a mention by Christ.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 8:50:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:30:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

Corrected version below:

> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray
> > > >
> > > > Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
> > > >
> > > > Ray
> > >
> > > Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?
> > >
> > > Anyway, plenty of Christians murder. The whole basis of Christianity is the idea that everyone is a sinner in need of forgiveness. So the commission of a sin is not the basis for excluding anyone from the umbrella of Christianity. Jesus hung out with the whores and tax collectors, not the sancimonious Pharisees... that wasn't an accident, it was a message.
> > >
> > > And PS: who is or is not a Christian, and who is or is not a sinner? That's for GOD to judge, not you. I may be an atheist, but I stuck out Sunday School long enough to know that one.
> > >
> >
> > Everyone is a sinner. And your comment above says a Christian identity claim is exempt from normal evidentiary requirements. Simply absurd. The Bible provides many ways to determine who is, or who is not, following Christ. For example: Does Christ lead persons to accept naturalistic or super naturalistic assumptions about nature?
> >
> > Ray
>
> The Bible tells us that anyone ATTEMPTING to follow the path of Christ (however imperfectly) is a Christian.
>

Generally true.

And when generalities give way to specifics one can see more clearly as to who is following Christ and who is not. I gave a specific example, or criteria, above. One cannot say Christ has led them to accept naturalistic assumptions about natural reality; that is, assumptions that say the Father of Christ did not design or create any living thing, past or present. Sean and his supporters have consistently evaded and avoided answering this specific criteria.

>
And the Bible says that, YES -- in fact -- membership in the club that is Christianity is not based on human judgement of evidence, but on GOD'S judgement of evidence.
>

There's a string of truth running in the statement above but the main cords are false. Christian identity claims are not exempt from normal evidentiary requirements.

> And if you read what Jesus is supposed to actually have done and said, based on the gospels (accounts) by the people who even MIGHT have met him, his message was all about how to treat people, not about the metaphysics of the universe. Take the Sermon on the Mount... the highest profile platform the Guy ever had. Did he spend ONE MOMENT on the metaphysical nature of the universe?
>

What we have here is a stereotypical false secular understanding of New Testament Christianity.

When Jesus taught on how to treat people He was talking as the Perfect Man, having never committed any sin; so the standard He taught far exceeded the standards found in the Old Testament. The standard taught by Christ is NOT attainable because it's anchored in the heart and mind. To even think or desire to hate or kill or fornicate equates to a violation of the standard. Thus, like I said, the standard is unattainable. No one can avoid thinking about or desiring fornication, killing, or hating. Christ and God are well aware of this fact.

The OTHER message that Christ taught was to receive Him by faith, which is the gospel or good news: God will accept faith and faith alone, and not compliance to a code of conduct, as the exclusive way to relate to Him and obtain salvation.

[corrected paragraph:]

So we have TWO distinct messages preached by Christ. The latter message is attainable, unlike the former. ***The main intent of the former is to drive us to the latter.*** The New Testament goes on to say that IF the latter message is pursued and practiced then eventually Christ-in-us will perform the former message----hence, the famous testimony one hears from so many converts: Christ changed my heart.

[end correction]

[jonathan]

Ray has a point, if someone calls himself, say, a pacifist
but espouses violence at every turn, then they're not
a pacifist in fact, only in name.

Same goes for the belief in God or Christianity, a mass
murderer is neither in fact, but in name only.

Words are supposed to have meaning, not just used
as self serving labels to brand people for the
purpose of reinforcing prejudice.

> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>
>

> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>

[r3p...@gmail.com]

> The point is, Ray, He didn't spend His time talking about the metaphysical nature of the universe. Apparently that information was so unimportant to the Christian message that it didn't even rate a mention by Christ.
>

Typical secular "understanding."

Christ's main message paraphrased: I was with God in heaven. Everything I say, and everything I do, is because God told Me to do these things and say these things."

For example: Jesus said all authority in heaven and earth had been given unto Him. Thus God told Him to say that. In other words, God told Him that He was God.

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word [= Christ], and the Word was with God."

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

So Christ was with God when He created the universe. Other passages in the New Testament say that God created every-thing through Christ. This is basic Protestant theology in every respect.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:25:02 PM UTC-7, Rolf wrote:
> <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5874e171-830c-4a57...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 8:25:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:

> >> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:15:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >> > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit
> >> > > > > mass murder.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Ray
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Ray
> >> > >
> >> > > Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because
> >> > > Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling
> >> > > him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any
> >> > > religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of
> >> > > us aren't up on?
> >> > >
> >> > > Anyway, plenty of Christians murder.
> >> >

> >> > All you have to do is provide one instance and I'm refuted. Be advised
> >> > that secular persons contend the Inquisitors were murdering Christians,

> >> > but I refuted that claim to the point that no secular person here has
> >> > ever said it since.
> >> >

> >> > Ray
> >>
> >> I can provide a never-ending laundry list of Christian murderers, but if
> >> anyone who commits murder is (a priori) not a Christian, then this is a
> >> futile exercise.
> >>
> >

> > You can provide no such list; one cannot say one was following Christ

> > while committing murder. While committing murder one is not following
> > Christ.
>
>

> But the person is free to take a short leave from following Christ before
> and after then act, isn't he/she? God forgives a repenting sinner, or?

If a person or sinner thinks of it the way you have phrased it then this person has most likely been rejected by God. YET to have ANY desire to get right with Christ or God means God and Christ have not rejected this person.

>
> What does it mean, "to follow Christ"?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/5xp8T9nUY6M/inRDjmUeAgAJ

Ray



>
> >
> > Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:15:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:09:03 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
> >>
> >> Ray
> >
> >Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
> >
> >Ray
>
>

> By your definition.
>
> --

> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire

I define a Christian as "a follower of Christ."

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:15:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:07:22 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> >> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:22:06 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
> >> >
> >> >Ray
> >>
> >>

> >> Cite who made that claim.
> >>
> >
> >People like yourself, many times.
>
>
> Since by definition I am a "people like myself", you should have no
> problem citing where I have made that claim. Don't be insulted that I
> don't wait for you to do so.

>
>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire

I'm glad you're not denying that affluent secular people do commit mass murder. I've seen the claim or implication countless times.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Sorry... a mass murderer cannot believe in God or Christianity?

One of the central tenets of Christianity is that all people are sinners. Does a Christian become not a Christian when he/she sins? And how long does that last? Just until the person has stopped sinning, or until they have repented it? Or maybe it is about the DEGREE of sin? How big does a sin need to be, for a person to become a non-Christian? Is failing to keep the Sabbath enough? Theft? Adultery? Murder? Where exactly is the line?

Oh wait... to make any of those calls, you would have to be standing in judgement of other Christians, which the Bible tells you explicitly NOT TO DO.

A Christian is a person who believes in the divinity of Christ and tries to follow His Message... no matter how badly they do that, or how misguidedly.

And a theist (which is a totally different thing) is just ANYONE who thinks a god or gods of any kind exist.

>
> Words are supposed to have meaning, not just used
> as self serving labels to brand people for the
> purpose of reinforcing prejudice.

Tell that to Ray. He's the one trying to smear atheists baselessly.

[Sean Dillon]

And how much time did Jesus actually spend discussing the metaphysical nature of the universe, Ray? I mean, you would think, if God was really hung up on people having a particular understanding of the Earth's history, He would have asked His self/son to mention it just once.

I mean, it would have been easy for Jesus to say, from the Mount, "Hey listen up, everybody: every species on Earth was directly created by God, exactly as it is today. They never change. And God is popping new species into existence all the time."

But that's not how he spent his time, is it?

[Sean Dillon]

Ray, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question:

You say all people are sinners.
You are a person.
Therefore, you are a sinner.
A sinner is a person that commits sins.
Therefore, you commit sins.
When a person commits sin, that person is not following Christ.
Therefore when YOU commit sin, you are not following Christ.
A Christian is a person who follows Christ.
Therefore a person is not a Christian when they are committing sin.
Therefore YOU are not a Christian when you are committing sin.

Have I got that right? That you -- Ray -- are sometimes not a Christian? That suddenly you turn into a non-Christian, whenever you commit a sin?

I mean... that is the pretty ironclad logic that emerges from the claims that YOU have made.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:25:02 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 10/2/17 8:13 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com

> >> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit
> >>>> mass murder.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ray
> >>>
> >>> Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
> >>>
> >>> Ray
> >>

> >> Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because
> >> Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you
> >> calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of
> >> any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the
> >> rest of us aren't up on?
> >>
> >> Anyway, plenty of Christians murder.
> >

> > All you have to do is provide one instance and I'm refuted. Be
> > advised that secular persons contend the Inquisitors were murdering
> > Christians, but I refuted that claim to the point that no secular
> > person here has ever said it since.
>

> People have said it more than twice; count me among them.

No one can say a person was following Christ when they were committing murder, or stealing, or raping, for example.

> No one has
> been deterred in the slightest by your sophomoric, No-True-Scotsman
> arguments.

Ironically _No True Scotsman_ is a good example of the sophomoric. NTS says trivial identity claims are exempt from normal evidentiary requirements therefore, by implication, important identity claims are exempt as well. The logic is inverted: the trivial cannot dictate the important, and the important is not exempt from normal evidentiary requirements.

Robert disappears at this point.

>
> Your really do have difficulty accessing reality, Ray, and I'd urge you
> once again to seek professional help.
>

His feel-good parting shot.

Ray

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 00:25:02 UTC+1, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
>
> Ray

So much for your pretence of being a moral human being.

Anyway, haven't you heard, he was a Muslim.

[jonathan]

The central #1 tenet is thou shall not kill.

Does a Christian become not a Christian when he/she sins? And how long
does that last? Just until the person has stopped sinning, or until they
have repented it? Or maybe it is about the DEGREE of sin? How big does a
sin need to be, for a person to become a non-Christian? Is failing to
keep the Sabbath enough? Theft? Adultery? Murder? Where exactly is the line?
>
> Oh wait... to make any of those calls, you would have to be standing in judgement of other Christians, which the Bible tells you explicitly NOT TO DO.
>
> A Christian is a person who believes in the divinity of Christ and tries to follow His Message... no matter how badly they do that, or how misguidedly.
>

That's incorrect, a Christian is one that knows and follows
the tenets of Christianity.

Hitler called himself a Christian.

But his actions made it clear he was not, same for the
Vegas shooter.

Anyone can call themselves anything or profess to
believe in anything, that is not enough to make
that claim accurate.

We're not talking about missing Sunday school or such
here, but about the very core of the belief system.

Mass murder disqualifies someone from calling
themselves God fearing, religious or Christian.

Just as someone that kills pets for fun is
disqualified from considering himself an
animal lover.

Words are supposed to have meaning.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/03/las-vegas-shooter-sent-tens-thousands-dollars-overseas-officials-say.html

"ISIS, which has a strong presence in the Philippines, claimed Monday that Paddock was “a soldier” who converted to Islam months ago. But the FBI on Tuesday discounted any connection between Paddock's deadly rampage and international terrorism."

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 1:20:05 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 03/10/2017 04:34, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 8:25:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:

> >> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:15:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

> >>>>> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ray
> >>>>>

> >>>>> Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ray
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, plenty of Christians murder.
> >>>
> >>> All you have to do is provide one instance and I'm refuted. Be advised that secular persons contend the Inquisitors were murdering Christians, but I refuted that claim to the point that no secular person here has ever said it since.
> >>>

> >>> Ray
> >>
> >> I can provide a never-ending laundry list of Christian murderers, but if anyone who commits murder is (a priori) not a Christian, then this is a futile exercise.
> >>
> >
> > You can provide no such list; one cannot say one was following Christ while committing murder. While committing murder one is not following Christ.
>

> You were strangely reluctant to say that Calvin wasn't a Christian.
>

No one can say they were following Christ while committing murder.

You keep evading.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 1:25:03 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:

> On 03/10/2017 03:30, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
> >>>
> >>> Ray
> >>
> >> Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
> >>
> >> Ray
> >
> > Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?
>

> According to press reports his brother has been claiming that he was a
> multi-millionaire with no religious or political affiliation; unless Ray
> has a different source the athiest is Ray's spin.
>

E.M. supports what I said with no awareness of the fact.

No religious affiliation = Atheist.

Ray

[Ernest Major]

Can you offer a better definition of a Christian than someone who
sincerely claims to be a Christian? (One might have though that would be
the sort of emergent definition that you would approve of, given your
usual rhetoric.)

--
alias Ernest Major

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:20:05 AM UTC-7, joecummin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 20:46:03 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 8:40:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 6:25:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
> >> >
> >> > Ray
> >>
> >> But let's not lose site of this claim.
> >>
> >> I don't care about the millionaire bit... that's irrelevant.
> >>
> >> What's the evidence that this guy is an atheist? That he, in fact, believes that no gods exist?
> >
> >Until you identify a religious affiliation, the shooter remains an Atheist.
> >
>
> Let's examine Ray's behaviour here in a clinical manner:
>
> 1)He makes the claim that the killer is "an atheist millionaire'
>
> When asked for evidence he refuses, because he can't give that
> evidence.

It's all over the news. So you're admitting that you haven't followed the news.

Ray

[Öö Tiib]

May be Ray has questionable morale but signal/noise ratio can't be
improved by adding nonsense like that. The ISIS is desperate,
fractured, damaged, losing its ground and positions. Muslims in such
situation are lying so ISIS was most likely lying.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 3:30:05 AM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
> On 2017 Oct 03, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article<2d1182cf-ec31-41a4...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:00:02 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
> > > On 2017 Oct 02, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
> > > (in article<138219ac-5c0a-4983...@googlegroups.com>):
> > >
> > > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 8:20:02 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
> > > > > On 2017 Oct 02, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
> > > > > (in article<31cf218b-e254-4b04...@googlegroups.com>):

> > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:22:06 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass
> > > > > > > > murder.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ray
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Cite who made that claim.
> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > --

> > > > > > > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > say it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> > > > > > > Attributed to Voltaire
> > > > > >

> > > > > > People like yourself, many times.
> > > > >

> > > > > excellent. You’ll have no problems naming one, and giving the time and
> > > > > place, so that your claim can be verified.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ray
> > > >
> > > > Glad to see you're not attempting to deny the fact that affluent secular
> > > > people commit mass murder.
> > >
> > > nope. That’s a fact, confirmed over and over many times. However, what is
> > > NOT a fact is that anyone has ever said that ‘affluent secular people
> > > don’t commit mass murder. You said that someone made such a claim. When
> > > called on it, you doubled down and said that ‘people’ had made such
> > > claims ‘many times’.You have failed to provide even one example of the
> > > ‘people’ or the ‘many times’. Instead, you have deliberately and
> > > with
> > > malice aforethought attempted to sidestep the question. All that you’re
> > > doing is to demonstrate (again!) that you are a deliberate and totally
> > > unrepentant purveyor of falsehoods.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ray
> >
> > I'm glad you're not denying, don't mind being "wrong."
>
> and still can’t support your statement. It’s not that you’re wrong,
> it’s that you’re an unrepentant liar.
> >
> >
> > Ray

I've seen it countless times, some secular know-it-all like Sam Harris saying or implying that his kind don't commit mass murder.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 1:25:03 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:

> On 03/10/2017 04:46, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 8:40:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:

> >> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 6:25:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
> >>>
> >>> Ray
> >>

> >> But let's not lose site of this claim.
> >>
> >> I don't care about the millionaire bit... that's irrelevant.
> >>
> >> What's the evidence that this guy is an atheist? That he, in fact, believes that no gods exist?
> >
> > Until you identify a religious affiliation, the shooter remains an Atheist.
>

> I had been giving you the benefit of the doubt; that you were
> overinterpreting press reports. But here you appear to have admitted
> making up the claim.

A fake news spin on certain reports that support what I say.

>
> Why is murder the sin that stops you being a Christian? Why not advocacy
> of mass murder? Why not theft, or libel?
>

Didn't say murder was as such. Murder just happened to be the sin of a particular group misrepresented as Christians.

There are passages in the New Testament that say or suggest defending certain sinful practices as not sinful while not engaging in these sins is more sinful than engaging in these sins.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Nope! There are lots of people who are not affiliated with any particular religion, who still believe a god or gods exist.

[Sean Dillon]

Actually, that's a commandment, not a tenet. And it isn't even the #1 Commandment. It is somewhere in the #5-#7 range, depending on which version you're going with.

>
>
>
> Does a Christian become not a Christian when he/she sins? And how long
> does that last? Just until the person has stopped sinning, or until they
> have repented it? Or maybe it is about the DEGREE of sin? How big does a
> sin need to be, for a person to become a non-Christian? Is failing to
> keep the Sabbath enough? Theft? Adultery? Murder? Where exactly is the line?
> >
> > Oh wait... to make any of those calls, you would have to be standing in judgement of other Christians, which the Bible tells you explicitly NOT TO DO.
> >
> > A Christian is a person who believes in the divinity of Christ and tries to follow His Message... no matter how badly they do that, or how misguidedly.
> >
>
>
>
> That's incorrect, a Christian is one that knows and follows
> the tenets of Christianity.

But no one follows the tenets of Christianity perfectly, or even close. Which is why, according to Christianity, all people are sinners.

>
> Hitler called himself a Christian.
>
> But his actions made it clear he was not, same for the
> Vegas shooter.
>

You don't know what was in his heart or head.

> Anyone can call themselves anything or profess to
> believe in anything, that is not enough to make
> that claim accurate.

No, but actually believing in that thing IS. And you don't know what the shooter believes. Neither do I.

>
> We're not talking about missing Sunday school or such
> here, but about the very core of the belief system.
>
> Mass murder disqualifies someone from calling
> themselves God fearing, religious or Christian.
>
> Just as someone that kills pets for fun is
> disqualified from considering himself an
> animal lover.
>
> Words are supposed to have meaning.
>
>

I agree. Words have meaning. You know the dictionary meaning of "Christian?"

"One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ". That's it. Nothing about successfully following His teachings.

But anyway... exactly how far down the sinning food chain do we have to go, for a person to commit that sin and still consider themself a Christian?

After all, Thou Shall Not Kill is only ONE of the Ten Commandments, and not even the first one. If a Christian covets, do they cease to be a Christian? What about failing to honor mom and dad? Lying? Stealing? Adultering? Where's the line?

[Sean Dillon]

Actually, there is nothing on the news about him being an atheist.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 5:55:06 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 20:28:06 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> >On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

> >> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass murder.
> >> > >
> >> > > Ray
> >> >

> >> > Don't forget: Christians don't murder.
> >> >
> >> > Ray
> >>
> >> Sorry... are you claiming that he's "secular" simply because Christians (in your mind) are incapable of murder? Or are you calling him secular because no one (per news reports) is AWARE of any religious affiliation? Or do you have some other source the rest of us aren't up on?
> >>

> >> Anyway, plenty of Christians murder. The whole basis of Christianity is the idea that everyone is a sinner in need of forgiveness. So the commission of a sin is not the basis for excluding anyone from the umbrella of Christianity. Jesus hung out with the whores and tax collectors, not the sancimonious Pharisees... that wasn't an accident, it was a message.
> >>
> >> And PS: who is or is not a Christian, and who is or is not a sinner? That's for GOD to judge, not you. I may be an atheist, but I stuck out Sunday School long enough to know that one.
> >>
> >
> >Everyone is a sinner.
>

> Are people who sin following Christ? You really can't see the
> implications of your own arguments, can you?

The only problem here is secular ignorance of biblical theology.

There are two categories of sin:

1. The condition of sin or sinful nature that every person is born with and into because of the Fall.

2. Specifics acts of sin called trespasses; the do's and don'ts.

I was referring to #1 when I said everyone is a sinner.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

No one can say they were following Christ while committing a sin of ANY kind. And since we are all sinners, doesn't that mean that none of us are Christians? Including you?

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Jonathan is completely correct----completely!

Ray

[Ernest Major]

On 03/10/2017 22:17, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 1)He makes the claim that the killer is "an atheist millionaire'
>>
>> When asked for evidence he refuses, because he can't give that
>> evidence.
> It's all over the news. So you're admitting that you haven't followed the news.

What I've seen in the news is that his brother said that he (the
shooter) had no religious affiliation that he (the brother) knew of.
That's not the same as saying that he was an athiest.

It's consistent with him being an atheist. But it's also consistent with
him being an ietsist. It's also consistent with him being a Christian
unaffiliated with a church. It's even consistent with him being a
Southern Baptist or, as Daesh claims, a Muslim, in that affiliations
unknown to the brother are not automatically excluded.

It's strange that it took you so long to produce a cite, even one as
vague as "the news", instead arguing (false dichotomy and no true
Scotsman) that his actions meant that he wasn't a Christian.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 11:45:02 AM UTC-7, Mike Franklin wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:15:03 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> > You misunderstand. Atheism means that I believe (affirmatively) that no gods exist. A lack of specific religious affiliation is not sufficient to label someone an atheist.
>
> If you yourself are an atheist, and I can't tell from your post if you are identifying yourself as one or are speaking hypothetically, then you are the first atheist I have encountered, on the internet or anywhere else, that uses that definition of "atheism".
>
> Atheists typically, and by "typically" I mean "every single instance in my experience", define "atheism" as "lack of belief in any god". The belief that no gods exist is commonly labeled "strong atheism".
>
> Defining "atheism" the way you did is a tactic often used by theists attacking the atheist position, because then the theist can claim that both sides are asserting something without evidence.
>
> As an atheist myself, I'm curious to know whether you self-identify as an atheist. If you do, then you'll be the first one I've encountered to define "atheism" the way you do, which is fine, of course, but then I'll have to stop saying that all atheists define "atheism" a certain way.
>
> This post is in no way intended as support of anything Ray might have written- he continues to be wrong about everything.
>
> Mike

So asserted.

Show me one wrong claim, Mike.

I'm waiting....

In the meantime: When a person, for example, is committing murder or stealing they are NOT following Christ. And remember: secular thought says Christ was a good and wise person. So when people are stealing or committing murder, includes a policeman, they are Atheists in these instances and acts. They are denying Christ or opposing Christ. In Greek "alpha" or "a" as a prefix acts as negation; hence "Atheist" means "against Theos or Theism."

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Actually, no he's not. Not killing is NOT the #1 tenet. It isn't a tenet, it is a commandment, and it is somewhere in the #5-7 range, depending on the version you're going with.

Murder is a sin. Lots of other things are also sins. All Christians sin. Exactly how big do their sins have to be, for them no longer to be considered Christians?

[Ernest Major]

So, someone who defends the Amalekite and Midianite genocides would be a
non-Christian?

>
> Ray
>


--
alias Ernest Major

[Sean Dillon]

False dichotomy, Ray. There are far more choices than just "Christian" and "Atheist."

And no... atheist doesn't mean AGAINST God. That would be ANTItheism. A- in this instance means NOT, not AGAINST.

[Sean Dillon]

Simply, atheism is a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. If a person believes that a god or gods exist -- NO MATTER HOW THAT PERSON IS BEHAVING -- that person is NOT an atheist.

[Ernest Major]

You were willing to say that Hitler and the Inquisitors weren't
Christian. You were not willing to say that Calvin wasn't a Christian.
(Not following Christ is not the same as not being a Christian; it's
possible to be a bad Christian.)

Your double standard casts doubt on your sincerity.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Rolf]

<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:37068d77-0c21-4fea...@googlegroups.com...

I don't know what kind I am, but I don't commit mass murder, at least not on
a daily basis.
Is that wrong?

Rolf

> Ray
>

[Sean Dillon]

Well since you've pointed out that no one lives up to the example set by Christ, isn't it evident that all people are sinners in BOTH senses?

That's why the Lord's Prayer says:

Forgive us OUR TRESPASSES, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

[Mike Franklin]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:50:03 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 11:45:02 AM UTC-7, Mike Franklin wrote:

[snip]

> > This post is in no way intended as support of anything Ray might have written- he continues to be wrong about everything.
> >
> > Mike
>
> So asserted.
>
> Show me one wrong claim, Mike.

[snip]

> So when people are stealing or committing murder, includes a policeman, they are Atheists in these instances and acts.

Here ya go. HTH.

Mike

[Rolf]

<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:33159cde-8460-4260...@googlegroups.com...
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:15:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:07:22 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

>> >> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:22:06 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >So much for the claim that secular-affluent people don't commit mass
>> >> >murder.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ray
>> >>
>> >>

>> >> Cite who made that claim.
>> >>
>> >

>> >People like yourself, many times.
>>
>>

>> Since by definition I am a "people like myself", you should have no
>> problem citing where I have made that claim. Don't be insulted that I
>> don't wait for you to do so.

>>
>>
>> --
>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
>> to say it.
>>
>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> Attributed to Voltaire
>

> I'm glad you're not denying that affluent secular people do commit mass
> murder. I've seen the claim or implication countless times.
>

Is that the only group of people committing mass murder?

You seem like an expert, why don't you write an essay on the subject?

Rolf


> Ray
>

[Ray Martinez]

Yes, that's the point; whatever specific sin is mentioned the same represents all sinful acts. I thought that was understood, but I'm glad you said it anyway.

>
And since we are all sinners, doesn't that mean that none of us are Christians? Including you?
>

It just so happens that in the scroll of messages, as they appear on Google Groups, the message that appears before yours, that is, the one I'm responding to right now, is a message that I created. So what I'm about to say was said before what you have said above.

Again, in biblical theology there are two categories of sin:

1. The condition of sin, or sinful nature, that every person is born with, and into, because of the Fall.

2. Specifics acts of sin called trespasses; the do's and don'ts.

Your comment above, Sean, corresponds to the first category. So you cannot say none of us are Christians or followers of Christ. In other words the first category says every person is born separated from God with the capacity to sin.

Ray

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Oct 03, r3p...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<37068d77-0c21-4fea...@googlegroups.com>):

I don’t believe you.

> some secular know-it-all like Sam Harris saying
> or implying that his kind don't commit mass murder.

who, where, and when. If you’ve seen it ‘countless times’ it should be
trivial for you to point out just one example.

And if you mean to point at Sam Harris, then state where and when. At this
point nothing you post can be believed without supporting evidence.
>
>
> Ray

[Ray Martinez]

The context of what I said happens to be specified sins----specified in Romans chapter 1; this includes, for example, homosexuality. Heterosexuals who defend homosexuality, the defense itself, is worse than those who practice homosexuality.

Ray

[Robert Carnegie]

The discussion is futile since Ray's definition
of who's a Christian is "Ray and nobody else".