Attn: Al Klein: Puke's trying to cheat!
Miranda Writes, Damn the Dore, Full Speed Ahead
(duke32) wrote:
*** (Actually, duke the dumbfuck only posted this to
alt,recovery.catholicsim. Guess by making certain you wouldn't see his
'argument' he thought he'd be sure to win... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Miranda Writes) ****
>On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:05:25 GMT, duk...@earthlink.net (duke32) posted
>in alt.atheism:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 00:56:22 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:54:20 GMT, duk...@earthlink.net (duke32) posted
>>>in alt.atheism:
>
>>>>2. I have publically proclaimed that I believe that it does not
>>>>matter if one is Catholic/...Muslim/.. or athiest. Jesus makes the
>>>>call. If an athiest properly conducts his life towards others, I
>>>>would expect that Jesus would never hold his misfeelings (about Jesus)
>>>>to get in the way. Jesus is a big boy.
>
>>>This runs completely counter to the bible.
>
>>It does? Jesus said "no one comes to the Father except by me." He
>>never said one had to be a Catholic or a Christian, or a Jew or a
>>Muslim, a Buddist, etc. Jesus said He is the judge.
>
>>He said, in effect, that you have to accept him as savior to get to
>>heaven.
>
No He did not.
>
>>In having an alcoholic drink sinful. Of course not. The sin is
>>letting oneself become consumed with the drinking to the point of
>>neglect and pain to family, self, God, those in need, etc.
>
>>Salad bar Christianity - accept the parts you like and reject the
>>parts you don't. You're as "Christian" as the Chief Rabbi of Israel.
>
The chief rabbi of israel is not Christian. But I am.
>
And pride in itself is not a sin according to the bible, but the
ramifications thereof.
>
You're out of your league now,al.
>
duke
>
>
*****
Mat16:17 and the Pope:
Jesus said to Peter "Good for you, Simon, for this
_truth_ did not come to you from any human being, but
was given to you _DIRECTLY_ by my Father in Heaven."
*****
Pope Rudraigh
mon-ro...@outofyourmindspring.com (Miranda Writes, Damn the Dore,
Full Speed Ahead) wrote:
>In article <3c474cf...@news.earthlink.net>, duk...@earthlink.net
>(duke32) wrote:
>
<chop>
Frankly, Miranda, I don't give an arial intercourse with a rotating
pastry *what* Puke posts.
I plonked his sorry ass years ago.
Has it been years?
Time flies.
Pope Rudraigh
Denizen of Darkness (DoD #1)
http://www.rudraigh.com/afjc/home.html
"Holy Trinity my triple cheeked ass!" - Pope Rudraigh
" I too have learned the "grief" of cross posting, and in particular,
in replying to those denizens of darkness who live in afjc and
alt.christnet."- " Fervent" 11/11/2001
duke32
mon-ro...@outofyourmindspring.com (Miranda Writes, Damn the Dore,
Full Speed Ahead) wrote:
>In article <3c474cf...@news.earthlink.net>, duk...@earthlink.net
>(duke32) wrote:
>
>
> *** (Actually, duke the dumbfuck only posted this to
>alt,recovery.catholicsim. Guess by making certain you wouldn't see his
>'argument' he thought he'd be sure to win... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
> Miranda Writes) ****
Sorry M(ajor)/M(istake), incomplete woman, but I was responding to an
email from AKlein, who emailed me rather than post in public. But it
was I duke that published in a public ng again.
You lose again, and as usual.
duke32
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:47:26 -0500,
>mon-ro...@outofyourmindspring.com (Miranda Writes, Damn the Dore,
>Full Speed Ahead) wrote:
>
>Frankly, Miranda, I don't give an arial intercourse with a rotating
>pastry *what* Puke posts.
>I plonked his sorry ass years ago.
>Has it been years?
>Time flies.
>
>Pope Rudraigh
I wonder why I keep getting responses from rory if I am plonked.
And please, please don't unplonk me.
Thanks.
Your friend duke
Al Klein
mon-ro...@outofyourmindspring.com (Miranda Writes, Damn the Dore,
[with apology to arc - I can't prevent duke from poosting there]
>In article <3c474cf...@news.earthlink.net>, duk...@earthlink.net
>(duke32) wrote:
> *** (Actually, duke the dumbfuck only posted this to
>alt,recovery.catholicsim. Guess by making certain you wouldn't see his
>'argument' he thought he'd be sure to win... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
> Miranda Writes) ****
>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:05:25 GMT, duk...@earthlink.net (duke32) posted
>>in alt.atheism:
>>>It does? Jesus said "no one comes to the Father except by me." He
>>>never said one had to be a Catholic or a Christian, or a Jew or a
>>>Muslim, a Buddist, etc. Jesus said He is the judge.
>>>He said, in effect, that you have to accept him as savior to get to
>>>heaven.
>No He did not.
You just quoted him saying it. That you don't understand the words
you post is sad, but that fact doesn't lend any support to your
argumentoid.
>>>In having an alcoholic drink sinful. Of course not. The sin is
>>>letting oneself become consumed with the drinking to the point of
>>>neglect and pain to family, self, God, those in need, etc.
>>>Salad bar Christianity - accept the parts you like and reject the
>>>parts you don't. You're as "Christian" as the Chief Rabbi of Israel.
>The chief rabbi of israel is not Christian. But I am.
According to your twisted definition of Christianity, maybe.
>And pride in itself is not a sin according to the bible, but the
>ramifications thereof.
>You're out of your league now,al.
With you? My only problem is that, at my age, I can't bend low enough
to get to your level.
--
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
Edward Croteau
"Miranda Writes, Damn the Dore, Full Speed Ahead"
news:mon-roooooooe-1...@user-2ivf78q.dialup.mindspring.com...
> In article <3c474cf...@news.earthlink.net>, duk...@earthlink.net
> (duke32) wrote:
>
>
> *** (Actually, duke the dumbfuck only posted this to
> alt,recovery.catholicsim. Guess by making certain you wouldn't see his
> 'argument' he thought he'd be sure to win... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
> Miranda Writes) ****
>
Ya Ya And you always post from alt.attorny.anonomouse.com right ?
Ed.........................(Oldguyteck)
Edward Croteau
"Pope Rudraigh" <laug...@yourass.com> wrote in message
news:cvdf4ust4u0d34gs5...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:47:26 -0500,
> mon-ro...@outofyourmindspring.com (Miranda Writes, Damn the Dore,
> Full Speed Ahead) wrote:
>
> >In article <3c474cf...@news.earthlink.net>, duk...@earthlink.net
> >(duke32) wrote:
> >
> <chop>
>
> Frankly, Miranda, I don't give an arial intercourse with a rotating
> pastry *what* Puke posts.
>
> I plonked his sorry ass years ago.
>
> Has it been years?
>
It sure does.... And another thing that FLIES all over the entire internets
global community is you and your crazy croonies CUSSARDNESS............Shame
all over you
Ed......................(Oldguyteck)
Edward Croteau
"duke32" <duk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3c48aeb...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:47:26 -0500,
> mon-ro...@outofyourmindspring.com (Miranda Writes, Damn the Dore,
> Full Speed Ahead) wrote:
>
> >In article <3c474cf...@news.earthlink.net>, duk...@earthlink.net
> >(duke32) wrote:
> >
> >
> > *** (Actually, duke the dumbfuck only posted this to
> >alt,recovery.catholicsim. Guess by making certain you wouldn't see his
> >'argument' he thought he'd be sure to win... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
> > Miranda Writes) ****
>
> Sorry M(ajor)/M(istake), incomplete woman, but I was responding to an
> email from AKlein, who emailed me rather than post in public. But it
> was I duke that published in a public ng again.
>
> You lose again, and as usual.
>
> duke
That;'s why she is called [M]ajor[Misstake] and a perfect indication that
her [briefs] are not in order........
Ed......................(Oldguyteck)
duke32
Edward Croteau <granp...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:LT628.6660$OS5.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "duke32" <duk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3c48aeb...@news.earthlink.net...
> > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:47:26 -0500,
> > mon-ro...@outofyourmindspring.com (Miranda Writes, Damn the Dore,
> > Full Speed Ahead) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <3c474cf...@news.earthlink.net>, duk...@earthlink.net
> > >(duke32) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > *** (Actually, duke the dumbfuck only posted this to
> > >alt,recovery.catholicsim. Guess by making certain you wouldn't see his
> > >'argument' he thought he'd be sure to win... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
> > > Miranda Writes) ****
> >
> > Sorry M(ajor)/M(istake), incomplete woman, but I was responding to an
> > email from AKlein, who emailed me rather than post in public. But it
> > was I duke that published in a public ng again.
> >
> > You lose again, and as usual.
> >
> > duke
>
> That;'s why she is called [M]ajor[Misstake] and a perfect indication that
> her [briefs] are not in order........
>
> Ed......................(Oldguyteck)
Oooo I bet we could put her briefs in order. What to you think, the ones
with the 6 or 12" dildo? I know thatr 12" makes my eyes water everytime I
sit at the computer. But it always reminds me of that night with
Dobbin...mmmm...
How are your boys doing, I bet they will track stinky down before you die.
duke
duke32
>>The chief rabbi of israel is not Christian. But I am.
>According to your twisted definition of Christianity, maybe.
So al, what is your definition.
>>And pride in itself is not a sin according to the bible, but the
>>ramifications thereof.
>>You're out of your league now,al.
>With you? My only problem is that, at my age, I can't bend low enough
>to get to your level.
Well, sit at the table, and show us how little you do know.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 03:59:31 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>>>The chief rabbi of israel is not Christian. But I am.
>>According to your twisted definition of Christianity, maybe.
>So al, what is your definition.
Someone who accepts Jesus, and all he said, as their savior. You're
just a salad bar Christian.
Edward Croteau
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
news:242k4ugn82iatam5s...@4ax.com...
Speaking of being low... 'What is a 'salad bar Christian'?
Have you done a 'complete and thorough' research on these so called 'salad
bar Christians' And I Don;t mean from any of your 'Jack Chick tracks" or
anti Catholic networks that are spread all across the Internet...
Ed.......................(Oldguyteck)
duke32
> Speaking of being low... 'What is a 'salad bar Christian'?
> Have you done a 'complete and thorough' research on these so called 'salad
> bar Christians' And I Don;t mean from any of your 'Jack Chick tracks" or
> anti Catholic networks that are spread all across the Internet...
>
> Ed.......................(Oldguyteck)
Well we were sort of salad baring last night in the mart. I loved how you
got all those bananas past them LOL
duke
duke32
>>>According to your twisted definition of Christianity, maybe.
>>So al, what is your definition.
>Someone who accepts Jesus, and all he said, as their savior. You're
>just a salad bar Christian.
>Al
1. Someone who accepts Christ - I agree.
2. And all he said - **all** he said is spread throughout the 4
Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These include his dictates
for the Holy Eucharist, Baptism for the salvation of sins, the Pope,
Confession, priesthood, matrimony, Mary, etc, etc. These are
discussed and developed theologically throughout the remainder of the
New Testament. These additionally stand as solid doctrine and dogma
basis the early church fathers.
3. The Roman Catholic Church most fully and completely fulfils his
dictates for His Chruch on earth. No other church comes close except
he Eastern Church (rejects papacy) in fullfilling the dictates of
Christ Jesus. Protestants won't even talk about the Holy Eucharist -
it's apparently taboo.
4. Salad bar Christian - see #3 above.
5. What is your excuse for denying all these?
Betty
> just a salad bar Christian.
I am more of an Outback Christian, with Coriolis effect
Al Klein
<granp...@earthlink.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>Speaking of being low... 'What is a 'salad bar Christian'?
Someone who takes the parts of the bible he likes and ignores the
rest. IOW, almost everyone who calls himself Christian.
>Have you done a 'complete and thorough' research on these so called 'salad
>bar Christians'
Research into what? What the phrase means? Whether there's anyone
who practices every single word in the bible?
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 00:00:37 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>>>>According to your twisted definition of Christianity, maybe.
>>>So al, what is your definition.
>>Someone who accepts Jesus, and all he said, as their savior. You're
>>just a salad bar Christian.
>>Al
>1. Someone who accepts Christ - I agree.
>2. And all he said - **all** he said is spread throughout the 4
>Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These include his dictates
>for the Holy Eucharist, Baptism for the salvation of sins, the Pope,
>Confession, priesthood, matrimony, Mary, etc, etc.
They also include leaving when your preaching isn't wanted, selling
all you own and giving the money to the poor, not eating proscribed
foods (Jesus, according to the fable, was Jewish - and no practicing
Jew of the time would violate the commands in the OT), etc. Making
apologisms for those is being a salad bar Christian.
> These are discussed and developed theologically
"Developed theologically" = interpreted to mean what the "developers"
want them to mean.
>3. The Roman Catholic Church most fully and completely fulfils his
>dictates for His Chruch on earth. No other church comes close except
>he Eastern Church (rejects papacy)
Nothing about the papacy in the NT.
>4. Salad bar Christian - see #3 above.
You haven't sold all you own yet, so you're a salad bar Christian.
>5. What is your excuse for denying all these?
The fact that no one has yet presented the slightest shred of
objective evidence of any god. I was born an atheist and I've never
seen any reason to convert to any religion, yours or any other.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
I'd hazard a guess that you're also standing (or sitting?) upside
down. :)
duke32
>>1. Someone who accepts Christ - I agree.
>>2. And all he said - **all** he said is spread throughout the 4
>>Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These include his dictates
>>for the Holy Eucharist, Baptism for the salvation of sins, the Pope,
>>Confession, priesthood, matrimony, Mary, etc, etc.
>They also include leaving when your preaching isn't wanted,
You keep bring it up.
> selling all you own and giving the money to the poor,
No he didn't say that. He said if you have two, give one to the poor,
etc. He came to serve, not be served, and told us to repent and
follow him.
> not eating proscribed
>foods (Jesus, according to the fable, was Jewish - and no practicing
>Jew of the time would violate the commands in the OT), etc.
No he didn't say that. You see, Jesus was born a Jew, but came to
start a new Church - His Church - one based on love for one another
rather than man-made laws like prohibition on eathing certain things,
et al.
That's where the OT checks out and the NT kicks in. Heb8:7-15 says:
"For if there has been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no
place would have been sought for another".
Heb10:9 says: "He sets aside the first to establish the second".
Mat 15:10 says: "It is not what goes into a person's mouth that makes
him unclean, rather, what comes out of it makes him unclean."
> Making
>apologisms for those is being a salad bar Christian.
Roman Catholics follow it all. We least of all are salad bar
Christians.
>> These are discussed and developed theologically
>"Developed theologically" = interpreted to mean what the "developers"
>want them to mean.
Well, whatever you choose to believe.
>>3. The Roman Catholic Church most fully and completely fulfils his
>>dictates for His Chruch on earth. No other church comes close except
>>he Eastern Church (rejects papacy)
>Nothing about the papacy in the NT.
"Papacy" is the name of an elective "office", like the Presidency.
Act15:7, Mat16:18-19, Mat28:18-20, and Jn20:23 clearly show the
establishment of a man-led leadership on earth that will remain until
Christ returns.
>>4. Salad bar Christian - see #3 above.
>You haven't sold all you own yet, so you're a salad bar Christian.
And you can't even begin to back up what you're saying. I, otoh, can
quote you bilbical statement after statement to confirm that Christ
described the characteristics of His Church on earth, and the fact
that the RCC most fully incorporates **all** that he specified.
So much for your wild unfounded statements on salad bars.
>>5. What is your excuse for denying all these?
>The fact that no one has yet presented the slightest shred of
>objective evidence of any god. I was born an atheist and I've never
>seen any reason to convert to any religion, yours or any other.
And that is your problem, not mine. Those of us who are Christian do
so on faith based on the evidence around us greatly suggesting that
there **must** be a creator (call Him God for lack of a better name).
There is also the man-recorded fact that a man died on a cross, and
arose 3 days later to visit with his friends for 40 days before
ascending to the Father.
I'm betting on a life after life to the point that I will modify my 70
years on this earth in such a way that I participate in that next life
for all eternity with God in heaven.
Your position leaves you no future other than an eternity without God.
My way, I'm in a win (heaven, hopefully)/no win (no heaven) situation.
You, otoh, are in a lose (heaven)/no win (no heaven) situation.
I'll take win/no win situation any day over your lose/no win.
earle...@attbi.com
duk...@earthlink.net (duke32) wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:50:38 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>
> >>1. Someone who accepts Christ - I agree.
>
> >>2. And all he said - **all** he said is spread throughout the 4
> >>Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These include his dictates
> >>for the Holy Eucharist, Baptism for the salvation of sins, the Pope,
> >>Confession, priesthood, matrimony, Mary, etc, etc.
>
> >They also include leaving when your preaching isn't wanted,
>
> You keep bring it up.
>
> > selling all you own and giving the money to the poor,
>
> No he didn't say that. He said if you have two, give one to the poor,
> etc....
*
This is exactly the basis of my religion: Brucism.
Lenny Bruce said "If you have two shirts while someone else has none,
you are not a Christian."
(While hanging on to my Brucist beliefs, I think I will also pledge the
Confucian religion, although after reading the Analects of Confucianism,
I don't believe that Confucianism is a religion.)
Here are a couple of good references:
http://www.friesian.com/confuci.htm
http://www.csun.edu/~hbchm009/confucius.html
earle
*
"Isn't it a fine thing when we can apply the things we have learned."
--Confucius (about 500 BC)
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:50:38 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>>>1. Someone who accepts Christ - I agree.
>>>2. And all he said - **all** he said is spread throughout the 4
>>>Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These include his dictates
>>>for the Holy Eucharist, Baptism for the salvation of sins, the Pope,
>>>Confession, priesthood, matrimony, Mary, etc, etc.
>>They also include leaving when your preaching isn't wanted,
>You keep bring it up.
And you keep disobeying it.
>> selling all you own and giving the money to the poor,
>No he didn't say that. He said if you have two, give one to the poor
He also said to sell all you own. It's not my fault that the various
gospels contradict one another.
>> not eating proscribed
>>foods (Jesus, according to the fable, was Jewish - and no practicing
>>Jew of the time would violate the commands in the OT), etc.
>No he didn't say that. You see, Jesus was born a Jew, but came to
>start a new Church - His Church - one based on love for one another
>rather than man-made laws like prohibition on eathing certain things,
>et al.
He never said that. What he was doing was starting Reform Judaism.
Christianity is Saul's invention.
>That's where the OT checks out and the NT kicks in. Heb8:7-15 says:
>"For if there has been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no
>place would have been sought for another".
That's not Jesus, it'a Saul.
>Heb10:9 says: "He sets aside the first to establish the second".
>Mat 15:10 says: "It is not what goes into a person's mouth that makes
>him unclean, rather, what comes out of it makes him unclean."
You're quoting Saul, when we're talking about what Jesus said - not
what Saul claimed Jesus said.
>> Making
>>apologisms for those is being a salad bar Christian.
>Roman Catholics follow it all.
Nope. You're not Jews, obeying Jesus, you're Christians obeying Saul.
> We least of all are salad bar Christians.
But you're still salad bar Christians. Being less than the others and
not being one at all are different.
>>> These are discussed and developed theologically
>>"Developed theologically" = interpreted to mean what the "developers"
>>want them to mean.
>Well, whatever you choose to believe.
That's being a salad bar Christian - whatever YOU choose. Being a
real Christian is doing what Jesus commanded - even if you don't like
it (which almost no "Christian" does).
>>>3. The Roman Catholic Church most fully and completely fulfils his
>>>dictates for His Chruch on earth. No other church comes close except
>>>he Eastern Church (rejects papacy)
>>Nothing about the papacy in the NT.
>"Papacy" is the name of an elective "office", like the Presidency.
>Act15:7, Mat16:18-19, Mat28:18-20, and Jn20:23 clearly show the
>establishment of a man-led leadership on earth that will remain until
>Christ returns.
If that's how you interpret it.
>>>4. Salad bar Christian - see #3 above.
>>You haven't sold all you own yet, so you're a salad bar Christian.
>And you can't even begin to back up what you're saying.
Sure I can - read the bible.
> I, otoh, can
>quote you bilbical statement after statement to confirm that Christ
>described the characteristics of His Church on earth, and the fact
>that the RCC most fully incorporates **all** that he specified.
No, all you can quote is what Saul claimed Jesus said. _The Gospel of
St. Jesus_ doesn't exist.
>>>5. What is your excuse for denying all these?
>>The fact that no one has yet presented the slightest shred of
>>objective evidence of any god. I was born an atheist and I've never
>>seen any reason to convert to any religion, yours or any other.
>And that is your problem, not mine.
I have no problem with it.
> Those of us who are Christian do
>so on faith based on the evidence around us greatly suggesting that
>there **must** be a creator
Since there IS NO objective evidence that there must be a creator,
that would be a little difficult.
> (call Him God for lack of a better name).
Call him "god" if you like, but you go further - you make up all sorts
of things about him that are totally unevidenced.
>There is also the man-recorded fact that a man died on a cross, and
>arose 3 days later to visit with his friends for 40 days before
>ascending to the Father.
There are many written assertions. That something was written doesn't
mean that it's true.
>I'm betting on a life after life to the point that I will modify my 70
>years on this earth in such a way that I participate in that next life
>for all eternity with God in heaven.
Only if you;re right. If you're wrong, there is no heaven, so you
won't be going there.
>Your position leaves you no future other than an eternity without God.
My position leaves me exactly where your position leaves you. If
there's no god, we both become worm food. If there's a heaven, I've
lived my life exactly as gods designed me, so I get to heaven, unless
he's such a poor workman that he blames the defects of his products on
the products.
>My way, I'm in a win (heaven, hopefully)/no win (no heaven) situation.
>You, otoh, are in a lose (heaven)/no win (no heaven) situation.
No loss at all. No heaven, I die. Heaven, and a reasonable god, I go
to heaven. Heaven and an unreasonable god - who would want to spend
ANY time with a petulant child, let alone an eternity in which I
couldn't do anything? (If you do anything in a perfect heaven, you
make it less perfect.)
>I'll take win/no win situation any day over your lose/no win.
You would if that were the situation - since it's not, you won't.
duke32
>>>They also include leaving when your preaching isn't wanted,
>>You keep bring it up.
>And you keep disobeying it.
You keep asking questions and making bad statements. I'm just trying
to help you.
>>> not eating proscribed
>>>foods (Jesus, according to the fable, was Jewish - and no practicing
>>>Jew of the time would violate the commands in the OT), etc.
>
>>No he didn't say that. You see, Jesus was born a Jew, but came to
>>start a new Church - His Church - one based on love for one another
>>rather than man-made laws like prohibition on eathing certain things,
>>et al.
>
>He never said that. What he was doing was starting Reform Judaism.
>Christianity is Saul's invention.
Saul/Paul didn't write the 4 Gospels.
>>That's where the OT checks out and the NT kicks in. Heb8:7-15 says:
>>"For if there has been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no
>>place would have been sought for another".
>That's not Jesus, it'a Saul.
Saul/Paul didn't write the 4 Gospels.
>>Heb10:9 says: "He sets aside the first to establish the second".
>
>>Mat 15:10 says: "It is not what goes into a person's mouth that makes
>>him unclean, rather, what comes out of it makes him unclean."
>You're quoting Saul, when we're talking about what Jesus said - not
>what Saul claimed Jesus said.
Correct - see the 4 gospels for the words of Jesus himself.
>>> Making
>>>apologisms for those is being a salad bar Christian.
>>Roman Catholics follow it all.
>Nope. You're not Jews, obeying Jesus, you're Christians obeying Saul.
We follow the 4 Gospels. They are the backbone of the RCC.
Saul/Paul's letters to other nations expands on what Jesus said.
>> We least of all are salad bar Christians.
>But you're still salad bar Christians. Being less than the others and
>not being one at all are different.
Why, when we follow **all** of Jesus's teachings. The basis for the
RCC are the 4 gospels, not Pauls' writings.
At every mass, our bible readings are 1) usually an OT reading and 2)
**always, always** a Gospel reading from the lips of Jesus himself,
generally reflecting fulfillment/advancement of the OT.
Paul was an original convert to Chrisitanity, and his Epistle letters
are offered in accordance with his actions spreading the gospels.
Quite often we do get an additonal reading from the Epistles as
further confirmation and explaination. But nothing replaces the 4
gospels.
>That's being a salad bar Christian - whatever YOU choose. Being a
>real Christian is doing what Jesus commanded - even if you don't like
>it (which almost no "Christian" does).
All right, you tell me what Jesus commanded, and what we don't do, and
we can discuss it.
I'm tiring of your unfounded statements - just wild statements on your
part with no validity. No matter how much truth I give you, you just
continue to make stupid unfounded statements.
If you really want to discuss something, let's hear it.
>If that's how you interpret it.
No - that's the way it started - that's the way it is today. No
interpretation involved.
>>And you can't even begin to back up what you're saying.
>Sure I can - read the bible.
I have - You show no knowledge of it, and certainly show no validity
to your comments.
>No, all you can quote is what Saul claimed Jesus said. _The Gospel of
>St. Jesus_ doesn't exist.
Jesus was not a saint - Jesus is God become man.
>> Those of us who are Christian do
>>so on faith based on the evidence around us greatly suggesting that
>>there **must** be a creator
>Since there IS NO objective evidence that there must be a creator,
>that would be a little difficult.
Blessed are they that act based on what they can reason and not on
what they see, for they see so little. duke circa 2002
>> (call Him God for lack of a better name).
>Call him "god" if you like, but you go further - you make up all sorts
>of things about him that are totally unevidenced.
That's right - God has never been seen.
>>There is also the man-recorded fact that a man died on a cross, and
>>arose 3 days later to visit with his friends for 40 days before
>>ascending to the Father.
>There are many written assertions. That something was written doesn't
>mean that it's true.
No sign of intelligence here.
>>I'm betting on a life after life to the point that I will modify my 70
>>years on this earth in such a way that I participate in that next life
>>for all eternity with God in heaven.
>Only if you;re right. If you're wrong, there is no heaven, so you
>won't be going there.
That's right, and if there is, I may go there, but you won't because
you reject.
>>Your position leaves you no future other than an eternity without God.
>My position leaves me exactly where your position leaves you. If
>there's no god, we both become worm food. If there's a heaven, I've
>lived my life exactly as gods designed me, so I get to heaven, unless
>he's such a poor workman that he blames the defects of his products on
>the products.
I concur, and his directions for living your life are found in the 4
gospels.
>>My way, I'm in a win (heaven, hopefully)/no win (no heaven) situation.
>>You, otoh, are in a lose (heaven)/no win (no heaven) situation.
>No loss at all. No heaven, I die. Heaven, and a reasonable god, I go
>to heaven.
How, as you pretty much say you reject his teachings - certainly a
very reasonable requirement.
> Heaven and an unreasonable god - who would want to spend
>ANY time with a petulant child, let alone an eternity in which I
>couldn't do anything? (If you do anything in a perfect heaven, you
>make it less perfect.)
Heaven is perfect in that one is in perfect happiness there.
>>I'll take win/no win situation any day over your lose/no win.
>You would if that were the situation - since it's not, you won't.
More empty words on your part.
Velve...@bennyhinn.org
<snippage>
>>>Mat 15:10 says: "It is not what goes into a person's mouth that makes
>>>him unclean, rather, what comes out of it makes him unclean."
Would that mean oral sex is OK, providing you swallow?
<more snippage>
>Why, when we follow **all** of Jesus's teachings. The basis for the
>RCC are the 4 gospels, not Pauls' writings.
>
>At every mass, our bible readings are 1) usually an OT reading and 2)
>**always, always** a Gospel reading from the lips of Jesus himself,
>generally reflecting fulfillment/advancement of the OT.
Jesus himself? Where does he stay when he's in town?
>Paul was an original convert to Chrisitanity, and his Epistle letters
>are offered in accordance with his actions spreading the gospels.
>Quite often we do get an additonal reading from the Epistles as
>further confirmation and explaination. But nothing replaces the 4
>gospels.
>
>>That's being a salad bar Christian - whatever YOU choose. Being a
>>real Christian is doing what Jesus commanded - even if you don't like
>>it (which almost no "Christian" does).
>
>All right, you tell me what Jesus commanded, and what we don't do, and
>we can discuss it.
>
>I'm tiring of your unfounded statements - just wild statements on your
>part with no validity. No matter how much truth I give you, you just
>continue to make stupid unfounded statements.
>
>If you really want to discuss something, let's hear it.
>
>>If that's how you interpret it.
>
>No - that's the way it started - that's the way it is today. No
>interpretation involved.
If there were no interpretation in the bible, why are there so many divergent
opinions, even among the believers?
The whole book is an obfuscated, contradictory mess. Were it not, there would
only be one religion.
"Scriptures: The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from
the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based."
[Ambrose Bierce]
>>>And you can't even begin to back up what you're saying.
>
>>Sure I can - read the bible.
>
>I have - You show no knowledge of it, and certainly show no validity
>to your comments.
>
>>No, all you can quote is what Saul claimed Jesus said. _The Gospel of
>>St. Jesus_ doesn't exist.
>
>Jesus was not a saint - Jesus is God become man.
>
>>> Those of us who are Christian do
>>>so on faith based on the evidence around us greatly suggesting that
>>>there **must** be a creator
>
>>Since there IS NO objective evidence that there must be a creator,
>>that would be a little difficult.
>Blessed are they that act based on what they can reason and not on
>what they see, for they see so little. duke circa 2002
"I have little confidence in any enterprise or business or investment that
promises dividends only after the death of the stockholders."
Robert G.Ingersoll
<more snippage>
>Heaven is perfect in that one is in perfect happiness there.
Let's say I marry a muslim. How will I be happy in heaven if she'll never be
there?
or
Let's say I remarry, after my first wife dies tragically. In the Great
Beyond, will I be with both, and if so, can I have sex with both of them?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"
They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation
of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the
context of our very selfhood revealed."
And Jesus replied, "What?"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 06:33:58 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>>>>They also include leaving when your preaching isn't wanted,
>>>You keep bring it up.
>>And you keep disobeying it.
>You keep asking questions and making bad statements. I'm just trying
>to help you.
By disobeying Jesus.
>>>> not eating proscribed
>>>>foods (Jesus, according to the fable, was Jewish - and no practicing
>>>>Jew of the time would violate the commands in the OT), etc.
>>>No he didn't say that. You see, Jesus was born a Jew, but came to
>>>start a new Church - His Church - one based on love for one another
>>>rather than man-made laws like prohibition on eathing certain things,
>>>et al.
>>He never said that. What he was doing was starting Reform Judaism.
>>Christianity is Saul's invention.
>Saul/Paul didn't write the 4 Gospels.
You know the names of the authors? If you do, you're the first in
almost 2,000 years.
>>You're quoting Saul, when we're talking about what Jesus said - not
>>what Saul claimed Jesus said.
>Correct - see the 4 gospels for the words of Jesus himself.
The gospels are hearsay at best, but they're not the direct words of
Jesus.
>>>> Making
>>>>apologisms for those is being a salad bar Christian.
>>>Roman Catholics follow it all.
>>Nope. You're not Jews, obeying Jesus, you're Christians obeying Saul.
>We follow the 4 Gospels.
Jesus didn't - he followed the OT. *Real* Christians, being followers
of Jesus - follow the OT also. Phony "Christians" follow Saul and the
NT.
>They are the backbone of the RCC.
You're not saying anything.
>Saul/Paul's letters to other nations expands on what Jesus said.
According to Saul. We have no direct writing by Jesus, so we don;t
know whether the quotes are accurate or not. That he quoted Jesus'
thoughts would lead to the conclusion that the gospels are fiction.
Only a telepath could accurately transcribe someone else's thoughts.
>>> We least of all are salad bar Christians.
>>But you're still salad bar Christians. Being less than the others and
>>not being one at all are different.
>Why, when we follow **all** of Jesus's teachings.
You follow all of *Saul's* teachings. There's no written record in
Jesus' hand, so we don't know what Jesus (if he even existed) actually
taught.
> The basis for the
>RCC are the 4 gospels, not Pauls' writings.
The four gospels - written by? John, Luke, Mark and Matthew are
merely writer's devices - they aren't the names of the actual authors
- regardless of what your Church claims.
>At every mass, our bible readings are 1) usually an OT reading and 2)
>**always, always** a Gospel reading from the lips of Jesus himself,
>generally reflecting fulfillment/advancement of the OT.
You can't prove the accuracy of the bible by telling us what your
religion does. That's like a kid proving that Santa's real by showing
you the gift Santa left for him.
>Paul was an original convert to Chrisitanity, and his Epistle letters
>are offered in accordance with his actions spreading the gospels.
IF the story is the truth. You're assuming your conclusion.
>>That's being a salad bar Christian - whatever YOU choose. Being a
>>real Christian is doing what Jesus commanded - even if you don't like
>>it (which almost no "Christian" does).
>All right, you tell me what Jesus commanded
I can't, since no one alive today knows.
> and what we don't do, and we can discuss it.
One thing's for certain - Jesus followed the OT (there was no OT while
he was alive). You don't.
>I'm tiring of your unfounded statements - just wild statements on your
>part with no validity.
Slightly less wild than the guesses your Church makes.
> No matter how much truth I give you
The fact that you assert something doesn't make it true.
> you just continue to make stupid unfounded statements.
If you want to win by ad hom, I think anyone who believes in Saul's
nonsense is stupid.
>If you really want to discuss something, let's hear it.
Discuss what? You don't do everything Jesus commanded. If you did,
we wouldn't be having this conversation.
>>No, all you can quote is what Saul claimed Jesus said. _The Gospel of
>>St. Jesus_ doesn't exist.
>Jesus was not a saint - Jesus is God become man.
That's a nice evasion. It won't fool anyone for a moment, but it was
a nice try.
>>> Those of us who are Christian do
>>>so on faith based on the evidence around us greatly suggesting that
>>>there **must** be a creator
>>Since there IS NO objective evidence that there must be a creator,
>>that would be a little difficult.
>Blessed are they that act based on what they can reason and not on
>what they see, for they see so little.
That's objective evidence that there's a god?
>>> (call Him God for lack of a better name).
>>Call him "god" if you like, but you go further - you make up all sorts
>>of things about him that are totally unevidenced.
>That's right - God has never been seen.
That's right - just like leprechauns, the tooth fairy, Santa, etc.
>>>There is also the man-recorded fact that a man died on a cross, and
>>>arose 3 days later to visit with his friends for 40 days before
>>>ascending to the Father.
>>There are many written assertions. That something was written doesn't
>>mean that it's true.
>No sign of intelligence here.
Lots here. I'm sorry that you live in an intelligenceless land.
>>>I'm betting on a life after life to the point that I will modify my 70
>>>years on this earth in such a way that I participate in that next life
>>>for all eternity with God in heaven.
>>Only if you;re right. If you're wrong, there is no heaven, so you
>>won't be going there.
>That's right, and if there is, I may go there, but you won't because
>you reject.
Why shouldn't I go there? I'm living my life exactly as your god
created me to live it - not being able to accept stories of his
existence without objective evidence.
>>>Your position leaves you no future other than an eternity without God.
>>My position leaves me exactly where your position leaves you. If
>>there's no god, we both become worm food. If there's a heaven, I've
>>lived my life exactly as gods designed me, so I get to heaven, unless
>>he's such a poor workman that he blames the defects of his products on
>>the products.
>I concur, and his directions for living your life are found in the 4
>gospels.
Nope. His directions for MY living MY life are to be found in my
genes. And those genes form a person who accepts the bible for
exactly what it is - some words put on paper by some people.
>>>My way, I'm in a win (heaven, hopefully)/no win (no heaven) situation.
>>>You, otoh, are in a lose (heaven)/no win (no heaven) situation.
>>No loss at all. No heaven, I die. Heaven, and a reasonable god, I go
>>to heaven.
>How, as you pretty much say you reject his teachings
No - there's no record of HIS teachings. Just the word of Saul as to
what Jesus claimed god's teachings were - third-hand hearsay.
> - certainly a very reasonable requirement.
To accept hearsay as truth? Not the least bit reasonable. No court
does.
>> Heaven and an unreasonable god - who would want to spend
>>ANY time with a petulant child, let alone an eternity in which I
>>couldn't do anything? (If you do anything in a perfect heaven, you
>>make it less perfect.)
>Heaven is perfect in that one is in perfect happiness there.
No, "perfect" doesn't mean that. Your definition is of the heaven of
a spoiled brat.
>>>I'll take win/no win situation any day over your lose/no win.
>>You would if that were the situation - since it's not, you won't.
>More empty words on your part.
I'll take my experience over your mistranslated bible any time.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:23:53 GMT, duk...@earthlink.net (duke32) wrote:
>>Heaven is perfect in that one is in perfect happiness there.
>Let's say I marry a muslim. How will I be happy in heaven if she'll never be
>there?
> or
>Let's say I remarry, after my first wife dies tragically. In the Great
>Beyond, will I be with both, and if so, can I have sex with both of them?
I've been married 3 times so far, after being widowed twice. If this
keeps on, I'll have a harem when I get to heaven.
Edward Croteau
You speak of us(yourselfe) as objects....products?
We have the unmerrited gift of grace...
You look only into a void..... While we look to the LIGHT..... Based upon a
PROMISE, sustained by faith, and contunued in ACTION.....and un beknownst to
you we carry on with perfectly normal lives........Or at least do the best
we can.......
Ed........................(Oldguyteck)
>
> >My way, I'm in a win (heaven, hopefully)/no win (no heaven) situation.
> >You, otoh, are in a lose (heaven)/no win (no heaven) situation.
>
> No loss at all. No heaven, I die. Heaven, and a reasonable god, I go
> to heaven. Heaven and an unreasonable god - who would want to spend
> ANY time with a petulant child, let alone an eternity in which I
> couldn't do anything? (If you do anything in a perfect heaven, you
> make it less perfect.)
We would not be as we are... unclean... and would you kindly explain how you
come about your theory of..(If you do anything in a perfect heaven, you make
it less perfect) .... this ought to be eyebrow lifting.....!
Let me add: Even scientiest LOOK for things they cannot see...... Don't they
have faith they will find something..?
Ed.........................(Oldguyteck)
>
> >I'll take win/no win situation any day over your lose/no win.
>
> You would if that were the situation - since it's not, you won't.
And are you speaking as tho you have been there..... If not, how can you say
there is no such place ?
And yet in the above you attempt to describe [with your limited mind what
would occure]
Edward Croteau
<Velve...@BennyHinn.org> wrote in message
news:iqqr4usop7me0vf7d...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:23:53 GMT, duk...@earthlink.net (duke32) wrote:
>
> <snippage>
>
> >>>Mat 15:10 says: "It is not what goes into a person's mouth that makes
> >>>him unclean, rather, what comes out of it makes him unclean."
>
> Would that mean oral sex is OK, providing you swallow?
First of all Im somewhat stupid to attempt to answer such a vile
personage......
However, mr. filth.. It means just what you just did...... spout filthyness
out of your mouth..
Oh we know well you only just typed it, but it is in your mind... and in
person you most probably would have
that filth "what comes out of the mouth makes you unclean"
You just gave an example of what is meant by Mat 15:10
Ed.........................(Oldguyteck)
>
> <more snippage>
>
> >Why, when we follow **all** of Jesus's teachings. The basis for the
> >RCC are the 4 gospels, not Pauls' writings.
> >
> >At every mass, our bible readings are 1) usually an OT reading and 2)
> >**always, always** a Gospel reading from the lips of Jesus himself,
> >generally reflecting fulfillment/advancement of the OT.
>
> Jesus himself? Where does he stay when he's in town?
More correctly said..... A Gosple reading of what Jesus Himself had
said.......
And He resides in the temple of each faithfull believer.......
Seek and ye shall find.......
Ed......................(Oldguyteck)
>
>
> >Paul was an original convert to Chrisitanity, and his Epistle letters
> >are offered in accordance with his actions spreading the gospels.
> >Quite often we do get an additonal reading from the Epistles as
> >further confirmation and explaination. But nothing replaces the 4
> >gospels.
> >
> >>That's being a salad bar Christian - whatever YOU choose. Being a
> >>real Christian is doing what Jesus commanded - even if you don't like
> >>it (which almost no "Christian" does).
> >
> >All right, you tell me what Jesus commanded, and what we don't do, and
> >we can discuss it.
> >
> >I'm tiring of your unfounded statements - just wild statements on your
> >part with no validity. No matter how much truth I give you, you just
> >continue to make stupid unfounded statements.
> >
> >If you really want to discuss something, let's hear it.
> >
> >>If that's how you interpret it.
> >
> >No - that's the way it started - that's the way it is today. No
> >interpretation involved.
>
> If there were no interpretation in the bible, why are there so many
divergent
> opinions, even among the believers?
> The whole book is an obfuscated, contradictory mess. Were it not, there
would
> only be one religion.
Jesus said...... One shepard, and one flock....
many decided to go out from Him and His church. This is why you see so many
different denominations..... especially in the Protestants there must be
hundreds or more denominations
Ed.............................(Oldguyteck)
>
> "Scriptures: The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from
> the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based."
> [Ambrose Bierce]
>
> >>>And you can't even begin to back up what you're saying.
> >
> >>Sure I can - read the bible.
> >
> >I have - You show no knowledge of it, and certainly show no validity
> >to your comments.
> >
> >>No, all you can quote is what Saul claimed Jesus said. _The Gospel of
> >>St. Jesus_ doesn't exist.
> >
> >Jesus was not a saint - Jesus is God become man.
> >
> >>> Those of us who are Christian do
> >>>so on faith based on the evidence around us greatly suggesting that
> >>>there **must** be a creator
> >
> >>Since there IS NO objective evidence that there must be a creator,
> >>that would be a little difficult.
I suppose it is somewhat DIFFICULT for many. But not difficult for the
faithfull.....
We have all the proof we need..... We have a promise.......And I will hang
my faith upon that promise
Blessed is His name.......
Ed..............................(Oldguyteck)
>
>
> >Blessed are they that act based on what they can reason and not on
> >what they see, for they see so little. duke circa 2002
>
> "I have little confidence in any enterprise or business or investment that
> promises dividends only after the death of the stockholders."
> Robert G.Ingersoll
So Ingersoll was tied to the earthly things..... Not concerning himself
that he could not take any of his wealth nor worldly things with him..
With Jesus you have a perfect infinite spiritual life insurance....
And He already paid the price dearly..... for ALL of us......
Ed......................(Oldguyteck)
>
> <more snippage>
>
> >Heaven is perfect in that one is in perfect happiness there.
>
> Let's say I marry a muslim. How will I be happy in heaven if she'll never
be
> there?
> or
> Let's say I remarry, after my first wife dies tragically. In the Great
> Beyond, will I be with both, and if so, can I have sex with both of them?
If you have read the bible as you claim or many of you atheist claim you
would
know that question was posed to our Lord...... Jesus...... Now look it up
and you will
find the answer He gave the inquisitor.............
Ed............................(Oldguyteck)
Edward Croteau
Isn't that what Muslims believe ?
Maybe Mormons?
Ed......................(Oldguyteck)
duke32
>>>>Mat 15:10 says: "It is not what goes into a person's mouth that makes
>>>>him unclean, rather, what comes out of it makes him unclean."
>Would that mean oral sex is OK, providing you swallow?
What do you think?
>>Why, when we follow **all** of Jesus's teachings. The basis for the
>>RCC are the 4 gospels, not Pauls' writings.
>>At every mass, our bible readings are 1) usually an OT reading and 2)
>>**always, always** a Gospel reading from the lips of Jesus himself,
>>generally reflecting fulfillment/advancement of the OT.
>Jesus himself? Where does he stay when he's in town?
Anywhere He wants.
>If there were no interpretation in the bible, why are there so many divergent
>opinions, even among the believers?
Because some don't like what they read, so they change the meaning?
>The whole book is an obfuscated, contradictory mess. Were it not, there would
>only be one religion.
The bible is not a storybook - that's why. The bible is a
complilation of writings that are considered inspired by the Holy
Spirit which concern mankind and the salvation of his soul.
And there is not the divergence you speak of - merely the human desire
to read personal interpretation into it.
Of course, the Protest_ants did remove 7 books froom the OT in the
KJV.
>>>> Those of us who are Christian do
>>>>so on faith based on the evidence around us greatly suggesting that
>>>>there **must** be a creator
>>>Since there IS NO objective evidence that there must be a creator,
>>>that would be a little difficult.
>>Blessed are they that act based on what they can reason and not on
>>what they see, for they see so little. duke circa 2002
>"I have little confidence in any enterprise or business or investment that
>promises dividends only after the death of the stockholders."
> Robert G.Ingersoll
I'll take God over Mr. Ingersoll.
>>Heaven is perfect in that one is in perfect happiness there.
>Let's say I marry a muslim. How will I be happy in heaven if she'll never be
>there?
or
>Let's say I remarry, after my first wife dies tragically. In the Great
>Beyond, will I be with both, and if so, can I have sex with both of them?
Very easy to answer - in either case, happiness in heaven will totally
transgress mere human desire. That one is even in the bible regarding
7 dead brothers that subsequently married the widow.
duke32
>I've been married 3 times so far, after being widowed twice. If this
>keeps on, I'll have a harem when I get to heaven.
>Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
Rejecting God in this life quickly falls into a catagory of "I reject
God in this life, please let me reject God in the next life."
God is easy to get along with. Heading the way you apparently are,
you may not have any future harem problems.
duke32
>>>>>They also include leaving when your preaching isn't wanted,
>>>>You keep bring it up.
>>>And you keep disobeying it.
>>You keep asking questions and making bad statements. I'm just trying
>>to help you.
>By disobeying Jesus.
In what way?
>>Saul/Paul didn't write the 4 Gospels.
>You know the names of the authors? If you do, you're the first in
>almost 2,000 years.
Why did you say Saul did?
>>>You're quoting Saul, when we're talking about what Jesus said - not
>>>what Saul claimed Jesus said.
>Correct - see the 4 gospels for the words of Jesus himself.
>The gospels are hearsay at best, but they're not the direct words of
>Jesus.
Of course they are. Just as the words of George Washington are his.
>>We follow the 4 Gospels.
>Jesus didn't - he followed the OT. *Real* Christians, being followers
>of Jesus - follow the OT also. Phony "Christians" follow Saul and the
>NT.
Actually you have it backwards. Jesus said he came to "complete" the
OT. It's over. Get it.
>>They are the backbone of the RCC.
>You're not saying anything.
What are you saying?
>>Saul/Paul's letters to other nations expands on what Jesus said.
>According to Saul. We have no direct writing by Jesus, so we don;t
>know whether the quotes are accurate or not. That he quoted Jesus'
>thoughts would lead to the conclusion that the gospels are fiction.
>Only a telepath could accurately transcribe someone else's thoughts.
Does one have to have actual visual confirmation for truth?
>>>But you're still salad bar Christians. Being less than the others and
>>>not being one at all are different.
>>Why, when we follow **all** of Jesus's teachings.
>You follow all of *Saul's* teachings. There's no written record in
>Jesus' hand, so we don't know what Jesus (if he even existed) actually
>taught.
No. We follow the 4 Gospels, not the Epistles (as far as this
specific comment is concerned). There is absolutely no evidence that
the 4 gospels were written by saul, so your statement is wrong.
>> The basis for the
>>RCC are the 4 gospels, not Pauls' writings.
>The four gospels - written by? John, Luke, Mark and Matthew are
>merely writer's devices - they aren't the names of the actual authors
>- regardless of what your Church claims.
Can you prove Saul is a real man, and one and only one.
>>At every mass, our bible readings are 1) usually an OT reading and 2)
>>**always, always** a Gospel reading from the lips of Jesus himself,
>>generally reflecting fulfillment/advancement of the OT.
>You can't prove the accuracy of the bible by telling us what your
>religion does. That's like a kid proving that Santa's real by showing
>you the gift Santa left for him.
We do what the 4 Gospels say, even if Saul had said something else -
what else do you want?.
>>Paul was an original convert to Chrisitanity, and his Epistle letters
>>are offered in accordance with his actions spreading the gospels.
>IF the story is the truth. You're assuming your conclusion.
No more so than the American Revolution.
>>>That's being a salad bar Christian - whatever YOU choose. Being a
>>>real Christian is doing what Jesus commanded - even if you don't like
>>>it (which almost no "Christian" does).
>>All right, you tell me what Jesus commanded
>I can't, since no one alive today knows.
What does the bible say Jesus said then?
>> and what we don't do, and we can discuss it.
>One thing's for certain - Jesus followed the OT (there was no OT while
>he was alive). You don't.
By Jesus own words, he rejected the ways of the OT, such as where it
is said that it's not what you put in your mouth that counts (OT) but
what comes from your heart (and out your mouth) (NT).
>>I'm tiring of your unfounded statements - just wild statements on your
>>part with no validity.
>Slightly less wild than the guesses your Church makes.
At least I can show you my opinion in writing. You show no basis at
all for your opinion, other than blind unfounded statements.
>> you just continue to make stupid unfounded statements.
>If you want to win by ad hom, I think anyone who believes in Saul's
>nonsense is stupid.
Why - offer some reason.
>>If you really want to discuss something, let's hear it.
>Discuss what? You don't do everything Jesus commanded. If you did,
>we wouldn't be having this conversation.
What makes you think I don't?
>>>No, all you can quote is what Saul claimed Jesus said. _The Gospel of
>>>St. Jesus_ doesn't exist.
>
>>Jesus was not a saint - Jesus is God become man.
>
>That's a nice evasion. It won't fool anyone for a moment, but it was
>a nice try.
The grand part is that it is true, at least to the point that I am
willing to live my life accordingly.
You're not leaving yourself any leeway at all.
>>Blessed are they that act based on what they can reason and not on
>>what they see, for they see so little.
>That's objective evidence that there's a god?
What "is" seen activates a reasoning mind.
>>>>There is also the man-recorded fact that a man died on a cross, and
>>>>arose 3 days later to visit with his friends for 40 days before
>>>>ascending to the Father.
>>>There are many written assertions. That something was written doesn't
>>>mean that it's true.
>>No sign of intelligence here.
>Lots here. I'm sorry that you live in an intelligenceless land.
I guess I'll have to quit talking to you. If only you could offer
even one shred of evidence to back up yourself, you might offer
someone something to think about. This way, you offer nothing.
>>>>I'm betting on a life after life to the point that I will modify my 70
>>>>years on this earth in such a way that I participate in that next life
>>>>for all eternity with God in heaven.
>>>Only if you;re right. If you're wrong, there is no heaven, so you
>>>won't be going there.
>
>>That's right, and if there is, I may go there, but you won't because
>>you reject.
>
>Why shouldn't I go there? I'm living my life exactly as your god
>created me to live it - not being able to accept stories of his
>existence without objective evidence.
Are you? (Not that it's my place to judge, for it clearly isn't) If
so, then you probably have nothing to worry about. The rest of
humanity is not so sure of our own actions.
>>I concur, and his directions for living your life are found in the 4
>>gospels.
>Nope. His directions for MY living MY life are to be found in my
>genes. And those genes form a person who accepts the bible for
>exactly what it is - some words put on paper by some people.
Your assumption is that they are wrong.
>>>>My way, I'm in a win (heaven, hopefully)/no win (no heaven) situation.
>>>>You, otoh, are in a lose (heaven)/no win (no heaven) situation.
>>>No loss at all. No heaven, I die. Heaven, and a reasonable god, I go
>>>to heaven.
>>How, as you pretty much say you reject his teachings
>No - there's no record of HIS teachings. Just the word of Saul as to
>what Jesus claimed god's teachings were - third-hand hearsay.
I suspect you believe in the American Revolution too. Why the double
standard in your life?
>>Heaven is perfect in that one is in perfect happiness there.
>
>No, "perfect" doesn't mean that. Your definition is of the heaven of
>a spoiled brat.
A spoiled brat has nothing to do with it. It's a believers case.
>>>>I'll take win/no win situation any day over your lose/no win.
>>>You would if that were the situation - since it's not, you won't.
>>More empty words on your part.
>I'll take my experience over your mistranslated bible any time.
That's why I'm win/no win and you're lose/no win.
Packman
>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:07:56 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>
> >Jesus didn't - he followed the OT. *Real* Christians, being followers
> >of Jesus - follow the OT also. Phony "Christians" follow Saul and the
> >NT.
>
> Actually you have it backwards. Jesus said he came to "complete" the
> OT. It's over. Get it.
I guess that does away with the 10 commandments.
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:10:18 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>
> >I've been married 3 times so far, after being widowed twice. If this
> >keeps on, I'll have a harem when I get to heaven.
> >Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
>
> Rejecting God in this life quickly falls into a catagory of "I reject
> God in this life, please let me reject God in the next life."
*What* next life?
Al Klein
<granp...@earthlink.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>news:8c1q4u4m79lheki9p...@4ax.com...
>> My position leaves me exactly where your position leaves you. If
>> there's no god, we both become worm food. If there's a heaven, I've
>> lived my life exactly as gods designed me, so I get to heaven, unless
>> he's such a poor workman that he blames the defects of his products on
>> the products.
>You speak of us(yourselfe) as objects....products?
If god created us, we are. Products of his creation.
>We have the unmerrited gift of grace...
Non sequitur.
>You look only into a void..... While we look to the LIGHT
If reality is a void, I look into reality while you look into fantasy.
>Based upon a PROMISE
One without evidence.
> sustained by faith
That's ALL it is.
> and contunued in ACTION
I've never seen anyone live after death, have you?
>and un beknownst to you we carry on with perfectly normal lives
I don't consider bending my knee to a fantasy "normal".
>Or at least do the best we can
So does everyone, whether he believes in your god or not.
>> No loss at all. No heaven, I die. Heaven, and a reasonable god, I go
>> to heaven. Heaven and an unreasonable god - who would want to spend
>> ANY time with a petulant child, let alone an eternity in which I
>> couldn't do anything? (If you do anything in a perfect heaven, you
>> make it less perfect.)
>We would not be as we are... unclean... and would you kindly explain how you
>come about your theory of..(If you do anything in a perfect heaven, you make
>it less perfect) .... this ought to be eyebrow lifting.....!
If it's perfect, any change is away from perfection. There are no
degrees of perfection - something either IS perfect or it's not.
>Let me add: Even scientiest LOOK for things they cannot see...... Don't they
>have faith they will find something..?
They look for things they have objective evidence for. The objective
evidence of your god is?
>> >I'll take win/no win situation any day over your lose/no win.
>> You would if that were the situation - since it's not, you won't.
>And are you speaking as tho you have been there
I have. It's only due to a doctor who refuses to accept death that
I'm alive today.
>And yet in the above you attempt to describe [with your limited mind what
>would occure]
No, what DID occur. Ever been to Hong Kong. If not, your telling me
what it's like after death would be like your arguing with me about
the color of the water near the Star Ferry terminal on Kowloon. I've
been there (Hong Kong and death), you haven't.
Al Klein
<granp...@earthlink.net> posted in alt.atheism:
><Velve...@BennyHinn.org> wrote in message
>news:iqqr4usop7me0vf7d...@4ax.com...
>> Jesus himself? Where does he stay when he's in town?
>More correctly said..... A Gosple reading of what Jesus Himself had
>said.......
There's no Gospel of Jesus. It's more correctly a reading of what
someone (most likely Saul) claimed that Jesus said.
>And He resides in the temple of each faithfull believer.......
And nowhere else.
>Seek and ye shall find.......
Or "believing is seeing.
Both fallacies.
>Jesus said...... One shepard, and one flock....
Saul claimed that Jesus said it.
>many decided to go out from Him and His church. This is why you see so many
>different denominations..... especially in the Protestants there must be
>hundreds or more denominations
And there are a few among your Church too. The RCC is only ONE of the
Churches.
>> >>Since there IS NO objective evidence that there must be a creator,
>> >>that would be a little difficult.
>I suppose it is somewhat DIFFICULT for many. But not difficult for the
>faithfull.....
No, faith isn't difficult for the faithful. And eating ants isn't
difficult for the anteater. Any other painfully obvious comments?
>We have all the proof we need..... We have a promise.......And I will hang
>my faith upon that promise
You have faith. No matter how much you call it proof, it's still only
faith.
>With Jesus you have a perfect infinite spiritual life insurance....
With a company that has no address.
>And He already paid the price dearly..... for ALL of us......
If you believe fairy tales.
Al Klein
<granp...@earthlink.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>news:1tds4ugmqhari2u4g...@4ax.com...
>> I've been married 3 times so far, after being widowed twice. If this
>> keeps on, I'll have a harem when I get to heaven.
>Isn't that what Muslims believe ?
Mentally slow day?
>Maybe Mormons?
Not hardly.
Velve...@bennyhinn.org
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:11:04 -0500, Velve...@BennyHinn.org wrote:
>
>>>>>Mat 15:10 says: "It is not what goes into a person's mouth that makes
>>>>>him unclean, rather, what comes out of it makes him unclean."
>
>>Would that mean oral sex is OK, providing you swallow?
>
>What do you think?
>
>>>Why, when we follow **all** of Jesus's teachings. The basis for the
>>>RCC are the 4 gospels, not Pauls' writings.
>
>>>At every mass, our bible readings are 1) usually an OT reading and 2)
>>>**always, always** a Gospel reading from the lips of Jesus himself,
>>>generally reflecting fulfillment/advancement of the OT.
>
>>Jesus himself? Where does he stay when he's in town?
>
>Anywhere He wants.
>>If there were no interpretation in the bible, why are there so many divergent
>>opinions, even among the believers?
>
>Because some don't like what they read, so they change the meaning?
>
>>The whole book is an obfuscated, contradictory mess. Were it not, there would
>>only be one religion.
>
>The bible is not a storybook - that's why. The bible is a
>complilation of writings that are considered inspired by the Holy
>Spirit which concern mankind and the salvation of his soul.
It's nothing _but_ a storybook. A racist, sexist, violent piece of 3rd rate
fiction, rife with contradiction.
>And there is not the divergence you speak of - merely the human desire
>to read personal interpretation into it.
If it were clear and concise, there would be absolutely no need for
interpretation. Seems god isn't much good at ensuring his word is universally
understandable.
<snip>
>>>Blessed are they that act based on what they can reason and not on
>>>what they see, for they see so little. duke circa 2002
>
>>"I have little confidence in any enterprise or business or investment that
>>promises dividends only after the death of the stockholders."
>> Robert G.Ingersoll
>
>I'll take God over Mr. Ingersoll.
You should read him sometime. You might see religion for what it really is.
>>>Heaven is perfect in that one is in perfect happiness there.
>
>>Let's say I marry a muslim. How will I be happy in heaven if she'll never be
>>there?
> or
>>Let's say I remarry, after my first wife dies tragically. In the Great
>>Beyond, will I be with both, and if so, can I have sex with both of them?
>
>Very easy to answer - in either case, happiness in heaven will totally
>transgress mere human desire. That one is even in the bible regarding
>7 dead brothers that subsequently married the widow.
You know, the more I read from TB's like yourself, the happier I am that I
chose reality.
Edward Croteau
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 05:17:29 GMT, "Edward Croteau"
> <granp...@earthlink.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
> >news:8c1q4u4m79lheki9p...@4ax.com...
>
> >> My position leaves me exactly where your position leaves you. If
> >> there's no god, we both become worm food. If there's a heaven, I've
> >> lived my life exactly as gods designed me, so I get to heaven, unless
> >> he's such a poor workman that he blames the defects of his products on
> >> the products.
>
> >You speak of us(yourselfe) as objects....products?
>
> If god created us, we are. Products of his creation.
>
> >We have the unmerrited gift of grace...
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> >You look only into a void..... While we look to the LIGHT
>
> If reality is a void, I look into reality while you look into fantasy.
>
> >Based upon a PROMISE
>
> One without evidence.
>
> > sustained by faith
>
> That's ALL it is.
>
> > and contunued in ACTION
>
> I've never seen anyone live after death, have you?
>
> >and un beknownst to you we carry on with perfectly normal lives
>
> I don't consider bending my knee to a fantasy "normal".
Your personal opinion of course lacking any spiritual descernment I can
understand why
So will you now claim you would not bow to a king, salute a superior officer
etc....?
Are not these actions of one showing respect...... And in the same manner we
show respect to
our KING and LORD Jesus Christ......
Ed...............................(Oldguyteck)
>
> >Or at least do the best we can
>
> So does everyone, whether he believes in your god or not.
Well perhaps /everyone/ might just be stretching it a bit...... But I would
concure many do..
Ed..........................
>
> >> No loss at all. No heaven, I die. Heaven, and a reasonable god, I go
> >> to heaven. Heaven and an unreasonable god - who would want to spend
> >> ANY time with a petulant child, let alone an eternity in which I
> >> couldn't do anything? (If you do anything in a perfect heaven, you
> >> make it less perfect.)
>
> >We would not be as we are... unclean... and would you kindly explain how
you
> >come about your theory of..(If you do anything in a perfect heaven, you
make
> >it less perfect) .... this ought to be eyebrow lifting.....!
>
> If it's perfect, any change is away from perfection. There are no
> degrees of perfection - something either IS perfect or it's not.
Why would there necessarly be any change away from......Satan chose that and
was
cast out.........
Now when you look at PERFECT that is from a limited and fallible mindest...
We cannot
feel or see perfection in our state there is always some limitations... Oh
one can say oh isnt that a perfect
picture...... But is it really PERFECT.......? Of course not..... to the
eye of the beholder it might appear to be.
Ed........................
>
> >Let me add: Even scientiest LOOK for things they cannot see...... Don't
they
> >have faith they will find something..?
>
> They look for things they have objective evidence for. The objective
> evidence of your god is?
And where did this objective evidence come from if they are looking for
it......
How would they know...... there is some work now being done by scientiest
that
though they had found something and they claimed they had objective evidence
to
find this item..... yet they still did not find it..... Some even henched on
the idea that they did
But further invistagation showed NOPE......
Ed.....................
>
> >> >I'll take win/no win situation any day over your lose/no win.
>
> >> You would if that were the situation - since it's not, you won't.
>
> >And are you speaking as tho you have been there
>
> I have. It's only due to a doctor who refuses to accept death that
> I'm alive today.
Im glad the Doctor was successful.... But you know me I have to interject
that
the Lord interceeded.. and works His wonders thru us, the Doctors etc...
Physical death is what the Dr. was concerned with.......Now you have another
chanch..
Dont loose it Seek Him out......
Ed....................
>
> >And yet in the above you attempt to describe [with your limited mind what
> >would occure]
>
> No, what DID occur. Ever been to Hong Kong. If not, your telling me
> what it's like after death would be like your arguing with me about
> the color of the water near the Star Ferry terminal on Kowloon. I've
> been there (Hong Kong and death), you haven't.
Exactly, that is why Im telling you ...... Now here i have it on faith that
your telling me of your experiences...
Those were physical in nature....... How could I explain my spiritual
feelings and beliefs to you...?
If I showed you a picture of one of my grandchildren......... Wouldnt you
have to have some faith in my telling you that was my grandson or
grandaughter...... Or you could, even seeing , disbelieve...........
Ed................................(Oldguyteck)
caillean mcmahon
Edward; why do you spell the name of my fiath "Wiccon?" You are avoiding
answering this it seems.
Brightest Blessings;
Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
Put a hex on him and be done. Don't worry about violating that "harm
none" reede. It's ed we're talking about. No karmic liability
whatsoever.
Darklady
"caillean mcmahon" <caill...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C4F9819...@yahoo.com...
1) He's a lazy speller
2) He doesn't care how you spell your religion. He can barely spell his own
right. He just has no respect for yours and thus doesn't see spelling it
corrects as a priority.
--
-- Darklady
http://www.darklady.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dark-Lady
arjay
>
> Edward; why do you spell the name of my fiath "Wiccon?" You are avoiding
> answering this it seems.
No "seems" about it, Lady.
Our Neddie was once almost gleeful about his claim to be unable to use a spell
checker on his own posts.
But he slipped recently (according to something of his I saw quoted) and
admitted using a spell checker on someone else's material.
He spells that way because the original Ed was a colourful crank who was
virtually illiterate.
The present "Ed" is an imitator, and a poor one at that.
He also spells the name of your faith incorrectly to annoy you. The more you
protest, the more he drools with delight.
If you must continue to address him, try calling him "Oldfart." He's used to
the appellation.
--
arjay
Denizen of Darkness #111
Damned by Dore #42
Ubi dubium ibi libertas.
Alan Ferris
>If I showed you a picture of one of my grandchildren......... Wouldnt you
>have to have some faith in my telling you that was my grandson or
>grandaughter...... Or you could, even seeing , disbelieve...........
You could be showing a picture of any child. But we could if we
wished check that the person exists. Please show how you physically
checked your god existed.
Also just as different people claim to have different children (and
do) they also claim to have different gods. Show how you know that
all those other gods do not exist, if our atheism is wrong in this,
then you have proved your atheism in those other gods is wrong.
--
Alan Ferris
eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
Denizen of Darkness #42
EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A pervert once again strikes.. posing as Duke......" - <granp...@earthlink.net> 21/01/02
-----------
"This does not belong in this post......It was copied or cut and pasted by
you......" <granp...@earthlink.net> 23/01/02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.arcerland.com
ICQ UIN: 12811297
Alan Ferris
Ed has two patterns when he is truly overstepped the bounds, he will
wither bluster his way out lying to avoid the issue. Or he will just
ignore it and hope his god and everybody forgets his less than
christian attitudes.
Alan Ferris
>"caillean mcmahon" wrote ...
>>
>> Edward; why do you spell the name of my fiath "Wiccon?" You are avoiding
>> answering this it seems.
>
>No "seems" about it, Lady.
>Our Neddie was once almost gleeful about his claim to be unable to use a spell
>checker on his own posts.
>But he slipped recently (according to something of his I saw quoted) and
>admitted using a spell checker on someone else's material.
>
>He spells that way because the original Ed was a colourful crank who was
>virtually illiterate.
>The present "Ed" is an imitator, and a poor one at that.
>
>He also spells the name of your faith incorrectly to annoy you. The more you
>protest, the more he drools with delight.
>
>If you must continue to address him, try calling him "Oldfart." He's used to
>the appellation.
Ed cannot even spell basic words from his own faith correctly, well
the faith he pretends to have.
Alan Ferris
Well Ed certainly counts as none.
Justus Filius Satanis
"Alan Ferris" <al...@ildana.com> wrote in message
news:s2ev4ug31r9j6hp7f...@4ax.com...
| caillean mcmahon <caill...@yahoo.com> wrote
...
| >
| >
| >Edward; why do you spell the name of my fiath
"Wiccon?" You are avoiding
| >answering this it seems.
| >Brightest Blessings;
| >Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
|
| Ed has two patterns when he is truly overstepped
the bounds, he will
| wither bluster his way out lying to avoid the
issue. Or he will just
| ignore it and hope his god and everybody forgets
his less than
| christian attitudes.
'Ed' is a lifeless nothing squealing from the
abyss of its tortured Xian soul. Ignoring it is
easy.
St. Jackanapes
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, drunkard duke32 said..
> You keep asking questions and making bad statements. I'm just trying
> to help you.
Then suck his cock, fag. You know you want to.
--
St. Jackanapes
http://jackanapes.ws/
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
>
> "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A." <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote ...
> >caillean mcmahon wrote:
> >>
> >> Edward; why do you spell the name of my fiath "Wiccon?" You are avoiding
> >> answering this it seems.
> >> Brightest Blessings;
> >> Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
> >
> >Put a hex on him and be done. Don't worry about violating that "harm
> >none" reede. It's ed we're talking about. No karmic liability
> >whatsoever.
>
> Well Ed certainly counts as none.
Exactly. It's a commandment.
duke32
The one non-atheists believe in - God never promised us happiness in
this life - only in the next.
Unless one goes to hell, of course.
duke
**********
One day every tongue
will confess You are God.
One day every knee will bow.
Still the greatest treasure remains
for those who gladly choose you now.
**********
duke32
>>The bible is not a storybook - that's why. The bible is a
>>complilation of writings that are considered inspired by the Holy
>>Spirit which concern mankind and the salvation of his soul.
>It's nothing _but_ a storybook. A racist, sexist, violent piece of 3rd rate
>fiction, rife with contradiction.
Hey, if that's the way your mop flops, so be it. It's your funeral,
not mine.
>>And there is not the divergence you speak of - merely the human desire
>>to read personal interpretation into it.
>If it were clear and concise, there would be absolutely no need for
>interpretation. Seems god isn't much good at ensuring his word is universally
>understandable.
Well, God did not explain is reasons to me. Maybe that's his way of
weeding out the bad from the good. I don't know.
>>I'll take God over Mr. Ingersoll.
>
>You should read him sometime. You might see religion for what it really is.
You mean, of course, the way Mr Ingersoll sees it. Why do you let
this man blindly lead you so?
>>Very easy to answer - in either case, happiness in heaven will totally
>>transgress mere human desire. That one is even in the bible regarding
>>7 dead brothers that subsequently married the widow.
>You know, the more I read from TB's like yourself, the happier I am that I
>chose reality.
And the happier I am that I choose God, for the backwater path of
reality that I was on previously was leading me straight to hell.
Reality is for 70 years or so - happiness with God in heaven is
eternal. Duke circa 2002
duke32
Nope - Jesus did not say that.
Heb8:7-13 - "If there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant,
there would have been no need for a second one..."
duke32
Well, well - when did you get out of reform school, sj?
Darklady
"duke32" <duk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3c504c28...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:58:25 -0800, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A."
> <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>
> >duke32 wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:10:18 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I've been married 3 times so far, after being widowed twice. If this
> >> >keeps on, I'll have a harem when I get to heaven.
> >> >Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
> >>
> >> Rejecting God in this life quickly falls into a catagory of "I reject
> >> God in this life, please let me reject God in the next life."
> >
> >*What* next life?
>
> The one non-atheists believe in - God never promised us happiness in
> this life - only in the next.
>
> Unless one goes to hell, of course.
>
> duke
All non-atheists believe in the same heaven? That should be a shock to the
many non-Christian religions of the world -- as well as several of the
Christian religions, for that matter.
Alan Ferris
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:20:54 -0600, Packman <pma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>duke32 wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:07:56 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Jesus didn't - he followed the OT. *Real* Christians, being followers
>>> >of Jesus - follow the OT also. Phony "Christians" follow Saul and the
>>> >NT.
>>>
>>> Actually you have it backwards. Jesus said he came to "complete" the
>>> OT. It's over. Get it.
>
>>I guess that does away with the 10 commandments.
>
>Nope - Jesus did not say that.
>
>Heb8:7-13 - "If there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant,
>there would have been no need for a second one..."
M't:5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled.
--
Alan Ferris
eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
Denizen of Darkness #42
EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A pervert once again strikes.. posing as Duke......" - <granp...@earthlink.net> 21/01/02
-----------
"This does not belong in this post......It was copied or cut and pasted by
you......" <granp...@earthlink.net> 23/01/02
Alan Ferris
>
>"Alan Ferris" <al...@ildana.com> wrote in message
>news:s2ev4ug31r9j6hp7f...@4ax.com...
>| caillean mcmahon <caill...@yahoo.com> wrote
>...
>| >
>| >
>| >Edward; why do you spell the name of my fiath
>"Wiccon?" You are avoiding
>| >answering this it seems.
>| >Brightest Blessings;
>| >Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
>|
>| Ed has two patterns when he is truly overstepped
>the bounds, he will
>| wither bluster his way out lying to avoid the
>issue. Or he will just
>| ignore it and hope his god and everybody forgets
>his less than
>| christian attitudes.
>
>'Ed' is a lifeless nothing squealing from the
>abyss of its tortured Xian soul. Ignoring it is
>easy.
Can I quote you that sir :)
--
Alan Ferris
eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
Denizen of Darkness #42
EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A pervert once again strikes.. posing as Duke......" - <granp...@earthlink.net> 21/01/02
-----------
"This does not belong in this post......It was copied or cut and pasted by
you......" <granp...@earthlink.net> 23/01/02
Velve...@bennyhinn.org
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:09:52 -0500, Velve...@BennyHinn.org wrote:
>
>>>The bible is not a storybook - that's why. The bible is a
>>>complilation of writings that are considered inspired by the Holy
>>>Spirit which concern mankind and the salvation of his soul.
>
>>It's nothing _but_ a storybook. A racist, sexist, violent piece of 3rd rate
>>fiction, rife with contradiction.
>
>Hey, if that's the way your mop flops, so be it. It's your funeral,
>not mine.
>>>And there is not the divergence you speak of - merely the human desire
>>>to read personal interpretation into it.
The book is rife with "divergence". There are outright contradictions. If
you can't see them, or you can't see the sexism, or racism, ad nauseum, then
you are one incredibly dense individual.
>>If it were clear and concise, there would be absolutely no need for
>>interpretation. Seems god isn't much good at ensuring his word is universally
>>understandable.
>
>Well, God did not explain is reasons to me. Maybe that's his way of
>weeding out the bad from the good. I don't know.
No, it's a way of weeding out the gullible and naive from those who can think
for themselves.
>>>I'll take God over Mr. Ingersoll.
>>
>>You should read him sometime. You might see religion for what it really is.
>
>You mean, of course, the way Mr Ingersoll sees it. Why do you let
>this man blindly lead you so?
Blindly lead? Shit.
Unlike you, I read a wide range of books for insights into a subject I'm
interested in, including aspects of religion. Robert Ingersoll is only one of
many authors whose opinions I value.
Unlike yourself, I wouldn't dream of letting the contents of _one_ badly
written book determine the course of my life. Talk about "blindly lead."
>>>Very easy to answer - in either case, happiness in heaven will totally
>>>transgress mere human desire. That one is even in the bible regarding
>>>7 dead brothers that subsequently married the widow.
>
>>You know, the more I read from TB's like yourself, the happier I am that I
>>chose reality.
>
>And the happier I am that I choose God, for the backwater path of
>reality that I was on previously was leading me straight to hell.
Sounds like you're admitting you deserted reality.
Darklady
<Velve...@BennyHinn.org> wrote in message
news:qi515u4dps91u5rvr...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:19:17 GMT, duk...@earthlink.net (duke32) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:09:52 -0500, Velve...@BennyHinn.org wrote:
<snip to the meaty bits>
> >>>I'll take God over Mr. Ingersoll.
> >>
> >>You should read him sometime. You might see religion for what it really
is.
> >
> >You mean, of course, the way Mr Ingersoll sees it. Why do you let
> >this man blindly lead you so?
>
> Blindly lead? Shit.
> Unlike you, I read a wide range of books for insights into a subject I'm
> interested in, including aspects of religion. Robert Ingersoll is only
one of
> many authors whose opinions I value.
> Unlike yourself, I wouldn't dream of letting the contents of _one_ badly
> written book determine the course of my life. Talk about "blindly lead."
Thank you. Beautifully said.
<snip>
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:11:04 -0500, Velve...@BennyHinn.org wrote:
>>If there were no interpretation in the bible, why are there so many divergent
>>opinions, even among the believers?
>Because some don't like what they read, so they change the meaning?
People who do that are called Christians.
>Of course, the Protest_ants did remove 7 books froom the OT in the
>KJV.
And the Catholics modified what they didn't remove.
>>"I have little confidence in any enterprise or business or investment that
>>promises dividends only after the death of the stockholders."
>> Robert G.Ingersoll
>I'll take God over Mr. Ingersoll.
You may be taking something that doesn't exist. Ingersoll did (does?)
exist.
>>>Heaven is perfect in that one is in perfect happiness there.
>>Let's say I marry a muslim. How will I be happy in heaven if she'll never be
>>there?
> or
>>Let's say I remarry, after my first wife dies tragically. In the Great
>>Beyond, will I be with both, and if so, can I have sex with both of them?
>Very easy to answer - in either case, happiness in heaven will totally
>transgress mere human desire. That one is even in the bible regarding
>7 dead brothers that subsequently married the widow.
IOW, you have no answer.
--
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:10:18 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>>I've been married 3 times so far, after being widowed twice. If this
>>keeps on, I'll have a harem when I get to heaven.
>>Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
>Rejecting God in this life quickly falls into a catagory of "I reject
>God in this life, please let me reject God in the next life."
Oh, good. A non sequitur - since I don't reject that for which I see
no objective evidence.
>God is easy to get along with. Heading the way you apparently are,
>you may not have any future harem problems.
So you sink to the typical Christian threat.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:07:56 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>>>>>>They also include leaving when your preaching isn't wanted,
>>>>>You keep bring it up.
>>>>And you keep disobeying it.
>>>You keep asking questions and making bad statements. I'm just trying
>>>to help you.
>>By disobeying Jesus.
>In what way?
Your preaching isn't wanted in alt.atheism. Jesus told you to leave
if you weren't wanted. You haven't left. Not answering this post (or
posting anything else to alt.atheism) would be obeying him.
>>>Saul/Paul didn't write the 4 Gospels.
>>You know the names of the authors? If you do, you're the first in
>>almost 2,000 years.
>Why did you say Saul did?
Where is the evidence that anyone else did?
>>>>You're quoting Saul, when we're talking about what Jesus said - not
>>>>what Saul claimed Jesus said.
>>Correct - see the 4 gospels for the words of Jesus himself.
>>The gospels are hearsay at best, but they're not the direct words of
>>Jesus.
>Of course they are. Just as the words of George Washington are his.
No, there are no autobiographies of Jesus. there are no
contemporaneous biographies of Jesus. There are no paintings from
life of Jesus. Just Saul's claims about him.
>>>We follow the 4 Gospels.
>>Jesus didn't - he followed the OT. *Real* Christians, being followers
>>of Jesus - follow the OT also. Phony "Christians" follow Saul and the
>>NT.
>Actually you have it backwards. Jesus said he came to "complete" the
>OT.
No, he said he came to follow it. Stop trying to reinterpret a bad
translation.
>>>They are the backbone of the RCC.
>>You're not saying anything.
>What are you saying?
You're claiming that the proof that the Church follows Jesus is that
the things the Church does are the backbone of the Church. That's a
HUGE begging of the question.
>>>Saul/Paul's letters to other nations expands on what Jesus said.
>>According to Saul. We have no direct writing by Jesus, so we don;t
>>know whether the quotes are accurate or not. That he quoted Jesus'
>>thoughts would lead to the conclusion that the gospels are fiction.
>>Only a telepath could accurately transcribe someone else's thoughts.
>Does one have to have actual visual confirmation for truth?
No, but Jesus' own words would be nice. Or, at least, a
contemporaneous writing that noticed all the miracles going on for all
those many, many months. Yet what do we have? Not a SINGLE WORD!
>>>>But you're still salad bar Christians. Being less than the others and
>>>>not being one at all are different.
>>>Why, when we follow **all** of Jesus's teachings.
>
>>You follow all of *Saul's* teachings. There's no written record in
>>Jesus' hand, so we don't know what Jesus (if he even existed) actually
>>taught.
>No. We follow the 4 Gospels
Which is NOT written by Jesus, so there's no way to now if what's in
the gospels is what Jesus actually taught. It's just a hearsay
assertion that it's what he taught.
>There is absolutely no evidence that the 4 gospels were written by saul
There's absolutely no evidence that they were written by anyone in
particular.
>>> The basis for the
>>>RCC are the 4 gospels, not Pauls' writings.
>>The four gospels - written by? John, Luke, Mark and Matthew are
>>merely writer's devices - they aren't the names of the actual authors
>>- regardless of what your Church claims.
>Can you prove Saul is a real man, and one and only one.
No, it's your assertion that the gospels were written by the people
purported to have written them, so I have no burden of proving you
wrong.
>>>At every mass, our bible readings are 1) usually an OT reading and 2)
>>>**always, always** a Gospel reading from the lips of Jesus himself,
>>>generally reflecting fulfillment/advancement of the OT.
>>You can't prove the accuracy of the bible by telling us what your
>>religion does. That's like a kid proving that Santa's real by showing
>>you the gift Santa left for him.
>We do what the 4 Gospels say
You still don;t understand, do you?
*THERE'S NO PROOF THAT THE GOSPELS ARE WHAT JESUS TAUGHT.*
> even if Saul had said something else - what else do you want?.
Proof of what Jesus actually taught, which doesn't exist.
>>>Paul was an original convert to Chrisitanity, and his Epistle letters
>>>are offered in accordance with his actions spreading the gospels.
>>IF the story is the truth. You're assuming your conclusion.
>No more so than the American Revolution.
We have contemporaneous accounts written by the people who were there.
We have no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus.
>>>>That's being a salad bar Christian - whatever YOU choose. Being a
>>>>real Christian is doing what Jesus commanded - even if you don't like
>>>>it (which almost no "Christian" does).
>>>All right, you tell me what Jesus commanded
>>I can't, since no one alive today knows.
>What does the bible say Jesus said then?
Who cares? What matters is what Jesus said, not what some book claims
he said.
>>> and what we don't do, and we can discuss it.
>>One thing's for certain - Jesus followed the OT (there was no OT while
>>he was alive). You don't.
>By Jesus own words, he rejected the ways of the OT
No, by his own second-hand words, he came to fulfill (obey) it.
>such as where it
>is said that it's not what you put in your mouth that counts (OT) but
>what comes from your heart (and out your mouth) (NT).
The OT never claims that what matters is what you put in your mouth.
>>>I'm tiring of your unfounded statements - just wild statements on your
>>>part with no validity.
>>Slightly less wild than the guesses your Church makes.
>At least I can show you my opinion in writing.
And I can show you mine in writing, so we're at an impasse. You show
me your nothing and I'll show you mine.
> You show no basis at
>all for your opinion, other than blind unfounded statements.
You show no basis at all for your opinion, other than unfounded claims
in the bible, and people's unfounded opinions of them.
>>> you just continue to make stupid unfounded statements.
>>If you want to win by ad hom, I think anyone who believes in Saul's
>>nonsense is stupid.
>Why - offer some reason.
Anyone who believes *any* nonsense is stupid.
>>>If you really want to discuss something, let's hear it.
>>Discuss what? You don't do everything Jesus commanded. If you did,
>>we wouldn't be having this conversation.
>What makes you think I don't?
You don't leave where you're not wanted.
>>>>No, all you can quote is what Saul claimed Jesus said. _The Gospel of
>>>>St. Jesus_ doesn't exist.
>>>Jesus was not a saint - Jesus is God become man.
>>That's a nice evasion. It won't fool anyone for a moment, but it was
>>a nice try.
>The grand part is that it is true
The grand part being that we have no record of Jesus' own words - just
what other people claimed he said, and those claims came long after he
was dead.
>at least to the point that I am willing to live my life accordingly.
That's not evidence of anything.
>You're not leaving yourself any leeway at all.
No, I'm not. Until there's some objective evidence, I reject your
assertions.
>>>Blessed are they that act based on what they can reason and not on
>>>what they see, for they see so little.
>>That's objective evidence that there's a god?
>What "is" seen activates a reasoning mind.
What *is* seen shows that there's no need for a supernatural being of
any sort. Unless one personally needs one.
>>>>>There is also the man-recorded fact that a man died on a cross, and
>>>>>arose 3 days later to visit with his friends for 40 days before
>>>>>ascending to the Father.
>>>>There are many written assertions. That something was written doesn't
>>>>mean that it's true.
>>>No sign of intelligence here.
>>Lots here. I'm sorry that you live in an intelligenceless land.
>I guess I'll have to quit talking to you. If only you could offer
>even one shred of evidence to back up yourself
That I reject your unfounded assertions? What evidence would you
like?
> you might offer
>someone something to think about. This way, you offer nothing.
I offer that you haven't the slightest shred of objective evidence to
back up your assertions. (Books written by others isn't objective
evidence that what's in those books is true.)
>>Why shouldn't I go there? I'm living my life exactly as your god
>>created me to live it - not being able to accept stories of his
>>existence without objective evidence.
>Are you?
Since everything is by your god's will (in your beliefs), of course.
>The rest of humanity is not so sure of our own actions.
If your god's will governs everything then we can do nothing but his
will. If we can do other than his will, he's not much of a god.
>>>I concur, and his directions for living your life are found in the 4
>>>gospels.
>>Nope. His directions for MY living MY life are to be found in my
>>genes. And those genes form a person who accepts the bible for
>>exactly what it is - some words put on paper by some people.
>Your assumption is that they are wrong.
No, I don't accept assertions without objective evidence - that's how
your god made me (if he actually exists). I don't "assume that
they're wrong", I just don't accept them. If you want to accept all
assertions, you'll have to spend your entire life accepting
assertions. Since you only accept ONE SPECIFIC unevidenced assertion,
you're being hypocritical (an attribute of theism, regardless of the
particular flavor).
>>>>>My way, I'm in a win (heaven, hopefully)/no win (no heaven) situation.
>>>>>You, otoh, are in a lose (heaven)/no win (no heaven) situation.
>>>>No loss at all. No heaven, I die. Heaven, and a reasonable god, I go
>>>>to heaven.
>>>How, as you pretty much say you reject his teachings
>>No - there's no record of HIS teachings. Just the word of Saul as to
>>what Jesus claimed god's teachings were - third-hand hearsay.
>I suspect you believe in the American Revolution too. Why the double
>standard in your life?
As I said, we have contemporaneous accounts written by the people who
were there. We have NO contemporaneous accounts that a rabbi named
Yeshua even existed.
>>>Heaven is perfect in that one is in perfect happiness there.
>>No, "perfect" doesn't mean that. Your definition is of the heaven of
>>a spoiled brat.
>A spoiled brat has nothing to do with it. It's a believers case.
You mean this is the way believers want heaven to be, so they define
it so. You can prove anything you like if you redefine words.
>>>>>I'll take win/no win situation any day over your lose/no win.
>>>>You would if that were the situation - since it's not, you won't.
>>>More empty words on your part.
>>I'll take my experience over your mistranslated bible any time.
>That's why I'm win/no win and you're lose/no win.
That's why you're wasting your time and I'm in no danger.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>duke32 wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:07:56 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>> >Jesus didn't - he followed the OT. *Real* Christians, being followers
>> >of Jesus - follow the OT also. Phony "Christians" follow Saul and the
>> >NT.
>> Actually you have it backwards. Jesus said he came to "complete" the
>> OT. It's over. Get it.
>I guess that does away with the 10 commandments.
And the Levitical prohibition against homosexuality.
Al Klein
<granp...@earthlink.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>news:l8du4ugb8p535vjmh...@4ax.com...
>> I don't consider bending my knee to a fantasy "normal".
>Your personal opinion of course lacking any spiritual descernment I can
>understand why
Your objective evidence of anything "spiritual"?
>So will you now claim you would not bow to a king, salute a superior officer
>etc....?
Kings and superior officers aren't someone's fantasy. No one's ever
shown any objective evidence of your god.
>Are not these actions of one showing respect...... And in the same manner we
>show respect to our KING and LORD Jesus Christ......
You can show respect to a character in a story if you like, but that's
what I don't consider normal.
>> If it's perfect, any change is away from perfection. There are no
>> degrees of perfection - something either IS perfect or it's not.
>Why would there necessarly be any change away from
If you blink, that's a change. Actually if you aren't in heaven now,
your going there is a change.
>......Satan chose that and was cast out.........
Typical Christian misunderstanding of Satan the evening star.
>Now when you look at PERFECT that is from a limited and fallible mindest...
The definition holds, whether we can comprehend perfection or not.
>We cannot
>feel or see perfection in our state there is always some limitations... Oh
>one can say oh isnt that a perfect
>picture...... But is it really PERFECT.......? Of course not..... to the
>eye of the beholder it might appear to be.
Doesn't change anything. If heaven is perfect (whatever "perfect"
might mean), changing it is making it less perfect. It's like moving
away from the North Pole. You CAN'T go further north, you can't even
stay as far north as you were. ALL moves from the North Pole are to a
place less north. Even if we don't know where the pole is, the
statement is still true.
>> >Let me add: Even scientiest LOOK for things they cannot see...... Don't they
>> >have faith they will find something..?
>> They look for things they have objective evidence for. The objective
>> evidence of your god is?
>And where did this objective evidence come from if they are looking for
>it......
They're NOT looking for the evidence they already have. And they
don't look for anything anyone thinks up. If they did, science would
still be trying to figure out how to make fire.
>How would they know...... there is some work now being done by scientiest that
>though they had found something and they claimed they had objective evidence to
>find this item..... yet they still did not find it..... Some even henched on the idea that they did
>But further invistagation showed NOPE......
And the situation you're talking about was what, in particular?
>> >> >I'll take win/no win situation any day over your lose/no win.
>> >> You would if that were the situation - since it's not, you won't.
>> >And are you speaking as tho you have been there
>> I have. It's only due to a doctor who refuses to accept death that
>> I'm alive today.
>Im glad the Doctor was successful.... But you know me I have to interject that
>the Lord interceeded..
I have objective evidence that the doctor did. Your objective
evidence that your god did?
>Now you have another chanch..
>Dont loose it Seek Him out......
There was no "him" TO "seek out".
>> >And yet in the above you attempt to describe [with your limited mind what
>> >would occure]
>> No, what DID occur. Ever been to Hong Kong. If not, your telling me
>> what it's like after death would be like your arguing with me about
>> the color of the water near the Star Ferry terminal on Kowloon. I've
>> been there (Hong Kong and death), you haven't.
>Exactly, that is why Im telling you
Because I've been there and you haven't? You're not making any sense.
> ...... Now here i have it on faith that
>your telling me of your experiences...
>Those were physical in nature....... How could I explain my spiritual
>feelings and beliefs to you...?
No need to - they aren't evidence of anything.
>If I showed you a picture of one of my grandchildren......... Wouldnt you
>have to have some faith in my telling you that was my grandson or
>grandaughter
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Almost everyone
(of an age) has grandchildren.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Also just as different people claim to have different children (and
>do) they also claim to have different gods. Show how you know that
>all those other gods do not exist, if our atheism is wrong in this,
>then you have proved your atheism in those other gods is wrong.
You just went MILES over Ed's head.
Al Klein
>In alt.flame.jesus.christ, drunkard duke32 said..
>> You keep asking questions and making bad statements. I'm just trying
>> to help you.
>Then suck his cock, fag. You know you want to.
The question is, "Would I allow him to?"
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:58:25 -0800, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A."
><cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>>duke32 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:10:18 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>>> >I've been married 3 times so far, after being widowed twice. If this
>>> >keeps on, I'll have a harem when I get to heaven.
>>> Rejecting God in this life quickly falls into a catagory of "I reject
>>> God in this life, please let me reject God in the next life."
>>*What* next life?
>The one non-atheists believe in
Many non-atheists don't believe in an afterlife.
--
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:20:54 -0600, Packman <pma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>duke32 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:07:56 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>>> >Jesus didn't - he followed the OT. *Real* Christians, being followers
>>> >of Jesus - follow the OT also. Phony "Christians" follow Saul and the
>>> >NT.
>>> Actually you have it backwards. Jesus said he came to "complete" the
>>> OT. It's over. Get it.
>>I guess that does away with the 10 commandments.
>Nope - Jesus did not say that.
>Heb8:7-13 - "If there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant,
>there would have been no need for a second one..."
Jesus said that?
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:09:52 -0500, Velve...@BennyHinn.org wrote:
>>>The bible is not a storybook - that's why. The bible is a
>>>complilation of writings that are considered inspired by the Holy
>>>Spirit which concern mankind and the salvation of his soul.
>>It's nothing _but_ a storybook. A racist, sexist, violent piece of 3rd rate
>>fiction, rife with contradiction.
>Hey, if that's the way your mop flops, so be it. It's your funeral,
>not mine.
Only if you're right. So far, in almost 2,000 years, no one has been
able to come up with the slightest shred of objective evidence. It's
all conjecture at this point.
>>>And there is not the divergence you speak of - merely the human desire
>>>to read personal interpretation into it.
>>If it were clear and concise, there would be absolutely no need for
>>interpretation. Seems god isn't much good at ensuring his word is universally
>>understandable.
>Well, God did not explain is reasons to me.
Reasons why the most important book in the history of the species is
so badly obfuscated? You don't have to be a god to figure that one
out, since there are only 2 possibilities.
>Maybe that's his way of weeding out the bad from the good.
Good meaning those who can figure out what the bible means and bad
meaning those who can't? That's reason #2.
(Your argument really boils down to "We're the good ones, and all
others are the bad ones", which is nonsense.)
>>>I'll take God over Mr. Ingersoll.
>>You should read him sometime. You might see religion for what it really is.
>You mean, of course, the way Mr Ingersoll sees it. Why do you let
>this man blindly lead you so?
Why do you? Ingersoll was a lot more intelligent than Saul of Tarsus.
And a lot more honest. No one ever threatened to kill Ingersoll if he
didn't leave town.
>>>Very easy to answer - in either case, happiness in heaven will totally
>>>transgress mere human desire. That one is even in the bible regarding
>>>7 dead brothers that subsequently married the widow.
>>You know, the more I read from TB's like yourself, the happier I am that I
>>chose reality.
>And the happier I am that I choose God, for the backwater path of
>reality that I was on previously was leading me straight to hell.
It's not reality that leads you to hell - it's seeing a warped version
of it. Some people really DO need a god to keep them functioning.
>Reality is for 70 years or so - happiness with God in heaven is
>eternal.
If it's not real, who cares?
Justus Filius Satanis
Be my guest.
Is that like kook central ? I am developing an
urge to visit it.
|
| --
| Alan Ferris
| eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
| Denizen of Darkness #42
| EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
| ------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
| "A pervert once again strikes.. posing as
Duke......" - <granp...@earthlink.net> 21/01/02
| -----------
| "This does not belong in this post......It was
copied or cut and pasted by
| you......" <granp...@earthlink.net> 23/01/02
Alan Ferris
I would suggest being along when visiting Kook central. The giggling
and loud laughing can so easily be misinterpreted :)
--
Alan Ferris
eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
Denizen of Darkness #42
EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A pervert once again strikes.. posing as Duke......" - <granp...@earthlink.net> 21/01/02
-----------
"This does not belong in this post......It was copied or cut and pasted by
you......" <granp...@earthlink.net> 23/01/02
Alan Ferris
duke32
wrote:
No, all Christian religions believe in the same Heaven.
Heaven's Gate, or the former thereof, are not Christian and instead
believe in riding comets.
Neither are Mormons, 7-day Adventists, Jehovah Witness, etc.
But you're right, I should have said "the one all Christians believe
in...".
Duke
duke32
I stand corrected in the poor way I said what I did.
duke32
>>Rejecting God in this life quickly falls into a catagory of "I reject
>>God in this life, please let me reject God in the next life."
>Oh, good. A non sequitur - since I don't reject that for which I see
>no objective evidence.
I suspect you believe the world's flat also, because you haven't
personally seen the sphere.
>>God is easy to get along with. Heading the way you apparently are,
>>you may not have any future harem problems.
>So you sink to the typical Christian threat.
Not a threat at all. It's a statement of belief - and one that is
yours to make and which you can easily change on your own.
Jim2002
>On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 02:13:22 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>
>
>>>Rejecting God in this life quickly falls into a catagory of "I reject
>>>God in this life, please let me reject God in the next life."
>
>>Oh, good. A non sequitur - since I don't reject that for which I see
>>no objective evidence.
>
>I suspect you believe the world's flat also, because you haven't
>personally seen the sphere.
>
>>>God is easy to get along with. Heading the way you apparently are,
>>>you may not have any future harem problems.
>
>>So you sink to the typical Christian threat.
>
>Not a threat at all. It's a statement of belief - and one that is
>yours to make and which you can easily change on your own.
What makes you think beliefs are easy to change?
Jim2002
duke32
>>>>And there is not the divergence you speak of - merely the human desire
>>>>to read personal interpretation into it.
>The book is rife with "divergence". There are outright contradictions. If
>you can't see them, or you can't see the sexism, or racism, ad nauseum, then
>you are one incredibly dense individual.
Actually the denseness is yours. You're trying to read the bible like
a chronological story book rather than a collection of writings that
have been judged inspired by the Holy Spirit as it concerns mankind
and the salvation of his soul.
>>Well, God did not explain is reasons to me. Maybe that's his way of
>>weeding out the bad from the good. I don't know.
>No, it's a way of weeding out the gullible and naive from those who can think
>for themselves.
But where's your wonderful reward for thinking for youself? Do you
get something for it?
You have 70 years to get from here to where??? Christian reward in
not in this 70 years, but the eternity to follow.
>>>>I'll take God over Mr. Ingersoll.
>>>You should read him sometime. You might see religion for what it really is.
>>You mean, of course, the way Mr Ingersoll sees it. Why do you let
>>this man blindly lead you so?
>Blindly lead? Shit.
You're still blindly following him. You'd jump off a cliff is he told
you to??
>Unlike you, I read a wide range of books for insights into a subject I'm
>interested in, including aspects of religion. Robert Ingersoll is only one of
>many authors whose opinions I value.
So you value his words - he pushes your hot button. What do you have
70 years from now?
>Unlike yourself, I wouldn't dream of letting the contents of _one_ badly
>written book determine the course of my life. Talk about "blindly lead."
My book teaches and leads me and us to love one another as the Father
loves us. And in so learning that lesson to open the door to an
eternity of happiness with the Father in Heaven.
Ingersoll, by your own words, teaches you to determine the course of
your life (70 years). God teaches me to determine the course of my
life for all eternity.
>>>>Very easy to answer - in either case, happiness in heaven will totally
>>>>transgress mere human desire. That one is even in the bible regarding
>>>>7 dead brothers that subsequently married the widow.
>>
>>>You know, the more I read from TB's like yourself, the happier I am that I
>>>chose reality.
>>
>>And the happier I am that I choose God, for the backwater path of
>>reality that I was on previously was leading me straight to hell.
>
>Sounds like you're admitting you deserted reality.
Reality is for 70 years, with a lot of human pain and suffering. I
hope you enjoy it.
duke32
wrote:
>> Blindly lead? Shit.
>> Unlike you, I read a wide range of books for insights into a subject I'm
>> interested in, including aspects of religion. Robert Ingersoll is only
>one of
>> many authors whose opinions I value.
>> Unlike yourself, I wouldn't dream of letting the contents of _one_ badly
>> written book determine the course of my life. Talk about "blindly lead."
>Thank you. Beautifully said.
Your funeral.
duke32
>>Hey, if that's the way your mop flops, so be it. It's your funeral,
>>not mine.
>Only if you're right.
And yours only if you're right.
> So far, in almost 2,000 years, no one has been
>able to come up with the slightest shred of objective evidence. It's
>all conjecture at this point.
I'll wager you really do believe that the astronauts really did spend
their time "on the moon" actually in a desert in Arizona.
>>Well, God did not explain is reasons to me.
>Reasons why the most important book in the history of the species is
>so badly obfuscated? You don't have to be a god to figure that one
>out, since there are only 2 possibilities.
If you're trying to figure out how to speak French from the bible, I
concur. But the inspired word of God is clear.
I also do not use the bible to study math.
>>Maybe that's his way of weeding out the bad from the good.
>Good meaning those who can figure out what the bible means and bad
>meaning those who can't? That's reason #2.
Say what?
>(Your argument really boils down to "We're the good ones, and all
>others are the bad ones", which is nonsense.)
That's not the message of the bible at all. I knew you really had no
idea what it says.
>>>>I'll take God over Mr. Ingersoll.
>>>You should read him sometime. You might see religion for what it really is.
>>You mean, of course, the way Mr Ingersoll sees it. Why do you let
>>this man blindly lead you so?
>Why do you? Ingersoll was a lot more intelligent than Saul of Tarsus.
>And a lot more honest. No one ever threatened to kill Ingersoll if he
>didn't leave town.
Hung up on Saul, aren't you?
>>And the happier I am that I choose God, for the backwater path of
>>reality that I was on previously was leading me straight to hell.
>It's not reality that leads you to hell - it's seeing a warped version
>of it. Some people really DO need a god to keep them functioning.
See - you really don't know what the bible says.
>>Reality is for 70 years or so - happiness with God in heaven is
>>eternal.
>If it's not real, who cares?
And if it is, I especially care. But, it's your funeral, not mine.
duke32
>>Because some don't like what they read, so they change the meaning?
>People who do that are called Christians.
Good point - I'm sure the buddist's don't read the bible.
>>Of course, the Protest_ants did remove 7 books froom the OT in the
>>KJV.
>And the Catholics modified what they didn't remove.
Where?
>You may be taking something that doesn't exist. Ingersoll did (does?)
>exist.
So what makes him right???
>>Very easy to answer - in either case, happiness in heaven will totally
>>transgress mere human desire. That one is even in the bible regarding
>>7 dead brothers that subsequently married the widow.
>IOW, you have no answer.
I just did. can't you read?
Oh, that's right - only these 70 years mean anything to you.
duke32
wrote:
>>>I guess that does away with the 10 commandments.
>>Nope - Jesus did not say that.
>>Heb8:7-13 - "If there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant,
>>there would have been no need for a second one..."
>M't:5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
>jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
>fulfilled.
>Alan Ferris
Fine, insert yours between mine.
Mat5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to do away with the law of
Moses and the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to do away
with them, but to make their teachings come true.
Mat5:20 - "I tell you, then, that you will be able to enter the
Kingdom of heaven only if you are more faithful than the teachers
of the Law and the Pharisees in doing what God requires.
Sounds like the Jews came up a little short on the program.
duke32
Jesus said he came to fulfill/complete the OT. It is finished.
John19:30. He came, and brought us a new commandment - that we love
one another as the Father loves us. John 13:34.
And then Paul wrote: "If there had been nothing wrong with the first
covenant, there would have been no need for a second one..."
duke
duke32
*****the following words are by Pacman:
>>I guess that does away with the 10 commandments.
*****
>And the Levitical prohibition against homosexuality.
You yourself AL quoted the words of Jesus when he said "he did not
come to do away with the Law...
Why do you now suggest that homosexuality is ok?
BTW, homosexuality, like being left hanged, is not a Levitical
prohibition. It's the practice of homosexuality that's a sin. To be
inclined that way is not a sin. To give in to it is.
Packman
>
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 03:47:47 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:23:55 GMT, duk...@earthlink.net (duke32) posted
> >in alt.atheism:
> >
> >>On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:20:54 -0600, Packman <pma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>duke32 wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:07:56 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
> >
> >>>> >Jesus didn't - he followed the OT. *Real* Christians, being followers
> >>>> >of Jesus - follow the OT also. Phony "Christians" follow Saul and the
> >>>> >NT.
> >
> >>>> Actually you have it backwards. Jesus said he came to "complete" the
> >>>> OT. It's over. Get it.
> >
> >>>I guess that does away with the 10 commandments.
> >
> >>Nope - Jesus did not say that.
> >
> >>Heb8:7-13 - "If there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant,
> >>there would have been no need for a second one..."
> >
> >Jesus said that?
>
> Jesus said he came to fulfill/complete the OT. It is finished.
> John19:30. He came, and brought us a new commandment - that we love
> one another as the Father loves us. John 13:34.
>
> And then Paul wrote: "If there had been nothing wrong with the first
> covenant, there would have been no need for a second one..."
So much for a perfect covenant-creating god.
Packman
Where is this imaginary heaven of yours?
duke32
>Your preaching isn't wanted in alt.atheism. Jesus told you to leave
>if you weren't wanted. You haven't left. Not answering this post (or
>posting anything else to alt.atheism) would be obeying him.
I'm not posting in alt.atheism. You're posting in
alt.recovery.catholicism.
>Where is the evidence that anyone else did?
The bible says Paul wrote some of the Epistles. the bible says others
wrote the Gospels.
>>>>>You're quoting Saul, when we're talking about what Jesus said - not
>>>>>what Saul claimed Jesus said.
>>>Correct - see the 4 gospels for the words of Jesus himself.
>>>The gospels are hearsay at best, but they're not the direct words of
>>>Jesus.
>
>>Of course they are. Just as the words of George Washington are his.
>
>No, there are no autobiographies of Jesus. there are no
>contemporaneous biographies of Jesus. There are no paintings from
>life of Jesus. Just Saul's claims about him.
What makes you think that George Washington's biographies were written
by him, or even about him for that matter? Faith does.
What makes you think the paintings of Washington are of him. Faith
does.
What makes me think Paul's writings are truthful and fact. Faith
does.
None of the 3 examples above are provable - they are all taken on
faith.
>>>>We follow the 4 Gospels.
>>>Jesus didn't - he followed the OT. *Real* Christians, being followers
>>>of Jesus - follow the OT also. Phony "Christians" follow Saul and the
>>>NT.
>>Actually you have it backwards. Jesus said he came to "complete" the
>>OT.
>No, he said he came to follow it. Stop trying to reinterpret a bad
>translation.
Stop trying to reinterpret no translation at all.
>You're claiming that the proof that the Church follows Jesus is that
>the things the Church does are the backbone of the Church. That's a
>HUGE begging of the question.
No. I'm saying that the backbone of the Church are the things that
Jesus gave us.
>>Does one have to have actual visual confirmation for truth?
>No, but Jesus' own words would be nice. Or, at least, a
>contemporaneous writing that noticed all the miracles going on for all
>those many, many months. Yet what do we have? Not a SINGLE WORD!
The written words (ink applied to paper are by others) are from the
quotes of those that did live out Jesus' life with him.
If you quote from the American Revolution, how many generations of
requote are you going thru before the words leave your lips?
>>No. We follow the 4 Gospels
>Which is NOT written by Jesus, so there's no way to now if what's in
>the gospels is what Jesus actually taught. It's just a hearsay
>assertion that it's what he taught.
If a videocam recorded Jesus' actions, he (Jesus) would not be the
author of the video picture. The recording person would be. So why
can't you accept that the written word is put to paper by someone
talking, in some cases, to actual eye witnesses?
>>There is absolutely no evidence that the 4 gospels were written by saul
>There's absolutely no evidence that they were written by anyone in
>particular.
But whoever they were, they were talking to eye witnesses of Jesus's
actions.
>>Can you prove Saul is a real man, and one and only one.
>No, it's your assertion that the gospels were written by the people
>purported to have written them, so I have no burden of proving you
>wrong.
I claim that the written word was written by someone talking to an
actual eye witness, is some cases. In others, there may have been mor
than 1 passage of information before being eventually written down.
but some of it was written by someone talking to an actual eye
witness.
How can you say that the story is false because the words were not
written by the eye witness, but somebody he was talking to.
>>We do what the 4 Gospels say
>You still don;t understand, do you?
I understand fully. You think the earth is flat because any writer of
any other theory did not go into space to see for himself but instead
listened to an astronaut, or many requotes down the line.
>*THERE'S NO PROOF THAT THE GOSPELS ARE WHAT JESUS TAUGHT.*
Nor that the sun is spherical. Maybe it too turns at such a rate that
one side is always turned to earth, like our moon is.
Or didn't you know that?
>> even if Saul had said something else - what else do you want?.
>Proof of what Jesus actually taught, which doesn't exist.
or that the sun isn't flat.
>We have contemporaneous accounts written by the people who were there.
>We have no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus.
You have nothing from nothing that the AR is true - only eye
witness/participants who spoke to writer to writer to writer, and on
and on. Pictues prove nothing. There are no videocams of so much as
1 bit of information form the AR.
Both the AR and Jesus have exactly the same quality of record. Eye
witnesses talking to writers to writers to writers, paintings,
artifacts, etc.
You really think GW chopped down that cherry tree?
>>What does the bible say Jesus said then?
>Who cares? What matters is what Jesus said, not what some book claims
>he said.
I do. An eternity of happiness with God in heaven is hanging in the
balance.
Your future, by your own expressed limitation in desires, goes no
further than plant food for your future.
>>By Jesus own words, he rejected the ways of the OT
>No, by his own second-hand words, he came to fulfill (obey) it.
My correction - He came to fulfill them. He rejected all the
restrictions on food, work, animal sacrifices, etc etc etc.
He said all those laws don't cut it - I bring you a new commandment,
that you love one another as the father loves you.
>The OT never claims that what matters is what you put in your mouth.
Then you have no idea what the OT says. Prohibition on animal blood,
pork, scavenger fish, etc etc.
>And I can show you mine in writing, so we're at an impasse. You show
>me your nothing and I'll show you mine.
Mine are in the bible, the most reproduced book for the last 2000
years. What do you have. Oh yeah, what old ingersoll suckered you in
with.
>You show no basis at all for your opinion, other than unfounded claims
>in the bible, and people's unfounded opinions of them.
I can see ole ingersoll saying now - here sucker, here sucker.
>Anyone who believes *any* nonsense is stupid.
Mr ingersoll?
>>What makes you think I don't?
>You don't leave where you're not wanted.
You're posting in alt.recovery.catholicism.
>The grand part being that we have no record of Jesus' own words - just
>what other people claimed he said, and those claims came long after he
>was dead.
like ole ingersoll.
>>at least to the point that I am willing to live my life accordingly.
>That's not evidence of anything.
But enough to govern my own life by.
>>You're not leaving yourself any leeway at all.
>No, I'm not. Until there's some objective evidence, I reject your
>assertions.
me - win/no win, you - lose/no win.
>>>>Blessed are they that act based on what they can reason and not on
>>>>what they see, for they see so little.
>>>That's objective evidence that there's a god?
Only all the worldly evidence around you and I.
>>What "is" seen activates a reasoning mind.
>What *is* seen shows that there's no need for a supernatural being of
>any sort. Unless one personally needs one.
I can't get to heaven alone. But you sure can be plant food.
>>I guess I'll have to quit talking to you. If only you could offer
>>even one shred of evidence to back up yourself
>That I reject your unfounded assertions? What evidence would you
>like?
Anything that would bear only a shred of evidence.
>> you might offer
>>someone something to think about. This way, you offer nothing.
>I offer that you haven't the slightest shred of objective evidence to
>back up your assertions. (Books written by others isn't objective
>evidence that what's in those books is true.)
like what ole ingersoll told you.
>>>Why shouldn't I go there? I'm living my life exactly as your god
>>>created me to live it - not being able to accept stories of his
>>>existence without objective evidence.
>>Are you?
>Since everything is by your god's will (in your beliefs), of course.
In a way, you're right - He gave us a free will, and that includes the
free will to reject him in this lifetime, basis our demonstrated
desire to be be equal to him.
Then he told us to clean up our act and accept him. That's the part
you're overlooking. And he made it oh, oh so very, very easy.
We're not demanded to go sinless, nor can we per his design, as long
as we try to clean ourselves up.
He called on us to love one another as he loves us.
By your own words, you say "he made me this way, I stay this way".
You see, instead of listening to God, you've been listening to
ingersoll. The only thing ingersoll is going to get you is a quick
trip to hell for all eternity.
>>The rest of humanity is not so sure of our own actions.
>If your god's will governs everything then we can do nothing but his
>will. If we can do other than his will, he's not much of a god.
He's a great God. He openly allows us to select our ways but asks us
to select his ways over our ways. If that's the way we want it (our
way) in this life, he's more than happy to grant us our wish for all
eternity.
And that, al, is what the bible is all about.
>No, I don't accept assertions without objective evidence - that's how
>your god made me (if he actually exists).
See my words directly above.
>>A spoiled brat has nothing to do with it. It's a believers case.
>You mean this is the way believers want heaven to be, so they define
>it so. You can prove anything you like if you redefine words.
Jesus, hanging from a cross between 2 thieves, told them "Today you
will be with me in paradise."
That takes a powerfully stupid man to pass up.
>>That's why I'm win/no win and you're lose/no win.
>That's why you're wasting your time and I'm in no danger.
It's your funeral, not mine.
duke
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
>
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 03:53:13 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>
> >>Hey, if that's the way your mop flops, so be it. It's your funeral,
> >>not mine.
>
> >Only if you're right.
>
> And yours only if you're right.
>
> > So far, in almost 2,000 years, no one has been
> >able to come up with the slightest shred of objective evidence. It's
> >all conjecture at this point.
>
> I'll wager you really do believe that the astronauts really did spend
> their time "on the moon" actually in a desert in Arizona.
Why not? The Russians certainly believed it.
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
>
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 02:13:22 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>
> >>Rejecting God in this life quickly falls into a catagory of "I reject
> >>God in this life, please let me reject God in the next life."
>
> >Oh, good. A non sequitur - since I don't reject that for which I see
> >no objective evidence.
>
> I suspect you believe the world's flat also, because you haven't
> personally seen the sphere.
I've seen its shadow on the moon.
Darklady
Really? Like the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses? Or do you simply believe
that they aren't Christian religions because they're too different from the
RCC to qualify in your opinion?
> Heaven's Gate, or the former thereof, are not Christian and instead
> believe in riding comets.
>
> Neither are Mormons, 7-day Adventists, Jehovah Witness, etc.
Ah, question answered. These Christian religions don't fit *your* definition
nor do they support your premise, therefore they are disqualified.
> But you're right, I should have said "the one all Christians believe
> in...".
>
> Duke
No, it should have said, "the one all Christians who believe as I do believe
in..."
--
-- Darklady
http://www.darklady.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dark-Lady
Darklady
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:19:04 -0500, Velve...@BennyHinn.org wrote:
>
> >>>>And there is not the divergence you speak of - merely the human desire
> >>>>to read personal interpretation into it.
>
> >The book is rife with "divergence". There are outright contradictions.
If
> >you can't see them, or you can't see the sexism, or racism, ad nauseum,
then
> >you are one incredibly dense individual.
>
> Actually the denseness is yours. You're trying to read the bible like
> a chronological story book rather than a collection of writings that
> have been judged inspired by the Holy Spirit as it concerns mankind
> and the salvation of his soul.
>
> >>Well, God did not explain is reasons to me. Maybe that's his way of
> >>weeding out the bad from the good. I don't know.
>
> >No, it's a way of weeding out the gullible and naive from those who can
think
> >for themselves.
>
> But where's your wonderful reward for thinking for youself? Do you
> get something for it?
The "wonderful reward" is thinking for ourselves.
> You have 70 years to get from here to where??? Christian reward in
> not in this 70 years, but the eternity to follow.
Some of us believe that the journey is more important than the destination
and we choose to enjoy the journey.
> >>>>I'll take God over Mr. Ingersoll.
> >>>You should read him sometime. You might see religion for what it
really is.
> >>You mean, of course, the way Mr Ingersoll sees it. Why do you let
> >>this man blindly lead you so?
>
> >Blindly lead? Shit.
>
> You're still blindly following him. You'd jump off a cliff is he told
> you to??
He's dead, you moron. And we, at least, accept that those minds that inspire
us die and stay dead. But their ideas (part of the wonderful reward of
thinking for ourselves) live on and inspire others.
> >Unlike you, I read a wide range of books for insights into a subject I'm
> >interested in, including aspects of religion. Robert Ingersoll is only
one of
> >many authors whose opinions I value.
>
> So you value his words - he pushes your hot button. What do you have
> 70 years from now?
You're expecting him to see into the future. YOU don't know what you'll have
70 years from now. You just know what you hope you'll have, based on faith
and desperate hope.
> >Unlike yourself, I wouldn't dream of letting the contents of _one_ badly
> >written book determine the course of my life. Talk about "blindly lead."
>
> My book teaches and leads me and us to love one another as the Father
> loves us. And in so learning that lesson to open the door to an
> eternity of happiness with the Father in Heaven.
>
> Ingersoll, by your own words, teaches you to determine the course of
> your life (70 years). God teaches me to determine the course of my
> life for all eternity.
My family lives past 70. Sorry your life will end so soon. Ed's even
surpassed your god's allotted lifespan. So much for your theory or your
contention that the Bible is any kind of reliable and infallable guide for
living.
<snip cuz I didn't reply to anything else>
Chris Nelson
> My way, I'm in a win (heaven, hopefully)/no win (no heaven) situation.
> You, otoh, are in a lose (heaven)/no win (no heaven) situation.
>
> I'll take win/no win situation any day over your lose/no win.
Pascal's Wager!
Sorry, you automatically lost the argument.
--
Chris
AUDIO VIDEO DISCO - "I hear, I see, I learn"
Velve...@bennyhinn.org
>On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 02:13:21 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>
>>>Because some don't like what they read, so they change the meaning?
>>People who do that are called Christians.
>
>Good point - I'm sure the buddist's don't read the bible.
>
>>>Of course, the Protest_ants did remove 7 books froom the OT in the
>>>KJV.
>
>>And the Catholics modified what they didn't remove.
>
>Where?
>
>>You may be taking something that doesn't exist. Ingersoll did (does?)
>>exist.
>
>So what makes him right???
You certainly are myopic.
It isn't whether Ingersoll (or anyone, for that matter) is "right" or "wrong",
but rather if what they say makes sense. Regarding the quote in question, he
makes a great deal of sense.
Take a walk on the wild side. Consider an alternative point-of-view, weigh
the evidence, or lack thereof, and reach your own conclusions. This is what
_every_one_ of the regulars in AFJC and AA have done.
You, on the other hand, have not.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"
They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation
of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the
context of our very selfhood revealed."
And Jesus replied, "What?"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Velve...@bennyhinn.org
>On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:19:04 -0500, Velve...@BennyHinn.org wrote:
>
>>>>>And there is not the divergence you speak of - merely the human desire
>>>>>to read personal interpretation into it.
>
>>The book is rife with "divergence". There are outright contradictions. If
>>you can't see them, or you can't see the sexism, or racism, ad nauseum, then
>>you are one incredibly dense individual.
>
>Actually the denseness is yours. You're trying to read the bible like
>a chronological story book rather than a collection of writings that
>have been judged inspired by the Holy Spirit as it concerns mankind
>and the salvation of his soul.
Tell me; do you believe men lived to be 600 years old? Do you believe
Balaam's donkey spoke?
>>>Well, God did not explain is reasons to me. Maybe that's his way of
>>>weeding out the bad from the good. I don't know.
>
>>No, it's a way of weeding out the gullible and naive from those who can think
>>for themselves.
>
>But where's your wonderful reward for thinking for youself? Do you
>get something for it?
Indeed. Incredible peace of mind, and a complete freedom from religious
guilt. Nobody died for my sins; I pay for my own sins.
As a bonus, all my Sunday mornings are mine, and I can put my money in a
charity box that doesn't go to support, among other things, lawyer's fees for
defense of pedophiliac priests, or ostentatious art collections in Italy.
>You have 70 years to get from here to where??? Christian reward in
>not in this 70 years, but the eternity to follow.
>
>>>>>I'll take God over Mr. Ingersoll.
>>>>You should read him sometime. You might see religion for what it really is.
>>>You mean, of course, the way Mr Ingersoll sees it. Why do you let
>>>this man blindly lead you so?
>
>>Blindly lead? Shit.
>
>You're still blindly following him. You'd jump off a cliff is he told
>you to??
What the hell are you talking about?
>>Unlike you, I read a wide range of books for insights into a subject I'm
>>interested in, including aspects of religion. Robert Ingersoll is only one of
>>many authors whose opinions I value.
>
>So you value his words - he pushes your hot button. What do you have
>70 years from now?
Comprehension isn't your strong suite, is it? I don't get emotional reading
about religion.
If anything, it seems that Ingersoll pushed your hot button. You seem to be
dwelling on it.
>>Unlike yourself, I wouldn't dream of letting the contents of _one_ badly
>>written book determine the course of my life. Talk about "blindly lead."
>
>My book teaches and leads me and us to love one another as the Father
>loves us.
I don't need to be taught how to treat my fellow humans. Compassion isn't a
trait exclusive to christians. Evidently, the method of "loving one another"
the bible teaches, has somehow been misinterpreted by some of your clergy to
include anal intercourse with young boys.
>And in so learning that lesson to open the door to an
>eternity of happiness with the Father in Heaven.
>Ingersoll, by your own words, teaches you to determine the course of
>your life (70 years).
Nonsense. Elaborate.
>God teaches me to determine the course of my life for all eternity.
>>>>>Very easy to answer - in either case, happiness in heaven will totally
>>>>>transgress mere human desire. That one is even in the bible regarding
>>>>>7 dead brothers that subsequently married the widow.
>>>
>>>>You know, the more I read from TB's like yourself, the happier I am that I
>>>>chose reality.
>>>
>>>And the happier I am that I choose God, for the backwater path of
>>>reality that I was on previously was leading me straight to hell.
>>
>>Sounds like you're admitting you deserted reality.
>
>Reality is for 70 years, with a lot of human pain and suffering. I
>hope you enjoy it.
I'm loving it. More than I ever would as an emotional coward.
Velve...@bennyhinn.org
>On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 21:08:37 +0000, Alan Ferris <al...@ildana.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>I guess that does away with the 10 commandments.
>
>>>Nope - Jesus did not say that.
>
>>>Heb8:7-13 - "If there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant,
>>>there would have been no need for a second one..."
>
>>M't:5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
>>jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
>>fulfilled.
>>Alan Ferris
>
>Fine, insert yours between mine.
Where is Mr. Orr when he's needed...
Maeljin
<Velve...@BennyHinn.org> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:tcr35uo2tefej6pua...@4ax.com...
With all due respect to you, art is art, it is humanity's heritage, and we
have the duty to protect it, I don't fucking care if I have to pay the
Church for doing it or my country or someone else's.
I would just like, if it was possible, to do it without paying that lawyers
too.
I like ancient churches, painting of Christ, saints, Madonnas, prophets and
statues because they are mine just as much as they belong to the christers.
You have just to be human to have a right to art.
--
Maeljin
Demonic Soul & Satan's Servant
(Damned by Dore, Primo in Italia)
King James Bibles Repaired
ICQ UIN 24875529
"I saw God
She said...'If you don't believe me, guaranteed you'll never leave me.'
On your way, and out of your time.
But I didn't know if it was true or the result of chemicals."
-Devin Townsend "Mountain"
duke32
wrote:
>> No, all Christian religions believe in the same Heaven.
>Really? Like the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses? Or do you simply believe
>that they aren't Christian religions because they're too different from the
>RCC to qualify in your opinion?
These 2 are not true Christian by definition. Get the picture yet.
>No, it should have said, "the one all Christians who believe as I do believe
>in..."
Really. Christianity believes in both the divine and human nature of
Christ. The Mormons reject his human nature, or vice versa. As far
as the JW are concerned, they are a major cult.
duke
duke32
wrote:
>>Not a threat at all. It's a statement of belief - and one that is
>>yours to make and which you can easily change on your own.
>What makes you think beliefs are easy to change?
>Jim2002
As soon as they are revealed as false.
duke32
<cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>> I suspect you believe the world's flat also, because you haven't
>> personally seen the sphere.
>
>I've seen its shadow on the moon.
Well, that's makes my point. thanks
duke32
wrote:
>> But where's your wonderful reward for thinking for youself? Do you
>> get something for it?
>The "wonderful reward" is thinking for ourselves.
I think for myself. I don't deny the obvious like you.
>> You have 70 years to get from here to where??? Christian reward in
>> not in this 70 years, but the eternity to follow.
>Some of us believe that the journey is more important than the destination
>and we choose to enjoy the journey.
Cool. God doesn't run a democracy. But it's your choice - for this
life and the next.
>> You're still blindly following him. You'd jump off a cliff is he told
>> you to??
>He's dead, you moron.
Oh, I'm sorry - I didn't know. But worst yet, you'd blindly follow
the former directions of a dead man.
> And we, at least, accept that those minds that inspire
>us die and stay dead.
Whereever they went.
> But their ideas (part of the wonderful reward of
>thinking for ourselves) live on and inspire others.
Right off that cliff, eh.
>> So you value his words - he pushes your hot button. What do you have
>> 70 years from now?
>You're expecting him to see into the future.
My God does.
> YOU don't know what you'll have
>70 years from now. You just know what you hope you'll have, based on faith
>and desperate hope.
And that's a whole lot more than ole ingersoll promised.
>> Ingersoll, by your own words, teaches you to determine the course of
>> your life (70 years). God teaches me to determine the course of my
>> life for all eternity.
>My family lives past 70. Sorry your life will end so soon. Ed's even
>surpassed your god's allotted lifespan. So much for your theory or your
>contention that the Bible is any kind of reliable and infallable guide for
>living.
Aw, dl - 70 is more or less generic for an average lifespan in this
conversation.
Your beliefs apply for 70 years, and then, plant food. By your own
admission, you won't exist past the end of your life on this earth. My
beliefs apply to the next life with God in paradise for all eternity.
I'll take mine, on top of a very enjoyous life on this earth first for
70 years or so.
Me - win/no win; you - lose/no win. The "no win" part applies if
there is no God like you believe.
duke32
>>Actually the denseness is yours. You're trying to read the bible like
>>a chronological story book rather than a collection of writings that
>>have been judged inspired by the Holy Spirit as it concerns mankind
>>and the salvation of his soul.
>Tell me; do you believe men lived to be 600 years old? Do you believe
>Balaam's donkey spoke?
Truthfully, I wouldn't know. Nor does it direct my Christian beliefs.
One bible I saw years ago listed the "1st five books" as pre-history.
>>But where's your wonderful reward for thinking for youself? Do you
>>get something for it?
>Indeed. Incredible peace of mind, and a complete freedom from religious
>guilt. Nobody died for my sins; I pay for my own sins.
Yes you will.
>As a bonus, all my Sunday mornings are mine, and I can put my money in a
>charity box that doesn't go to support, among other things, lawyer's fees for
>defense of pedophiliac priests, or ostentatious art collections in Italy.
Are you one of those people that believes that pedophiles are guilty
by accusation rather than jury, especially in the case of priests?
How many murderers are defended by your taxes?
>>You're still blindly following him. You'd jump off a cliff is he told
>>you to??
>
>What the hell are you talking about?
You said you'd take ingersoll over God. Do you have any particular
reason for believing his words?
>>So you value his words - he pushes your hot button. What do you have
>>70 years from now?
>Comprehension isn't your strong suite, is it? I don't get emotional reading
>about religion.
>If anything, it seems that Ingersoll pushed your hot button. You seem to be
>dwelling on it.
1. No, you apparently get emotional over reading ingersoll. I do
with God.
2. I have no idea who ingersoll is, or why I should believe him.
>>My book teaches and leads me and us to love one another as the Father
>>loves us.
>I don't need to be taught how to treat my fellow humans. Compassion isn't a
>trait exclusive to christians.
Above you mentioned you "could" put your money in charity. Do you do
your fair share (not intended as a personal question)? Do you donate
your time, talent, and treasure to your fellow man?
> Evidently, the method of "loving one another"
>the bible teaches, has somehow been misinterpreted by some of your clergy to
>include anal intercourse with young boys.
Tasteless comment. Even (especially) priests are human, and suffer
from human fraility and sin. Do you condemn all your countrymen
because 1 commits an evil act?
>>Ingersoll, by your own words, teaches you to determine the course of
>>your life (70 years).
>Nonsense. Elaborate.
You (apparently) are his supporter. If so, why would he know what
he's talking about to the exclusion of others that believe in God?
>>Reality is for 70 years, with a lot of human pain and suffering. I
>>hope you enjoy it.
>I'm loving it. More than I ever would as an emotional coward.
So do I. Yet I also am thinking and working about and for a life
after life. ingersoll apparently told you to forget it.
duke32
He never thought of that.
duke
>With all due respect to you, art is art, it is humanity's heritage, and we
>have the duty to protect it, I don't fucking care if I have to pay the
>Church for doing it or my country or someone else's.
>I would just like, if it was possible, to do it without paying that lawyers
>too.
>
>I like ancient churches, painting of Christ, saints, Madonnas, prophets and
>statues because they are mine just as much as they belong to the christers.
>You have just to be human to have a right to art.
>--
>
>Maeljin
**********