God is NOT Omni-benevolent
Kate
Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful. I'll clearly accept the
OT accounts and the Revelation as evidence to this God shows mercy ONLY
to those He deems worthy and who accept Him as their Lord. Being bathed
in the redeeming blood of Jesus His beloved Son that sacrificed His
life for mankinds sin will wash away our evil. To those that could not
know the Law of God such as pagans unaware of the Judeo-Christian
concepts and later of jesus they will be judged fairly according to the
Natural Light of Understanding in the conscience of men. Their works
and deeds tempered by Gods mercy will be the weight of their Judgement.
But to others God is the Final Judge and often poured out His wrath on
humanity through use of His power directly (10 Plagues of Egypt),
through actions of His servants on Earth or through nature. He may test
us with trials such as Job or by allowing bad things to happen to the
Christian. But the world is better off right now His hand is held back
as God protects His people by restraining His wrath. In the Revelation
after the Anti-Christ is revealed God will lift His protection and
Satan will be allowed to work then God will unleash the Final
Judgements upon all the world. Does that sound like a benevolent God?
It doesn't to me either so God is not all benevolent.
But God is God and as the creator of all we only must worship Him and
honor Him, we serve God and God does not serve us. And for those too
proud to accept that then the wrath poured out upon your heads will be
earned by your treachery in failing to accept God as your Master.
As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God. Rather God sets
the morality He demands we follow to the best of our ability His Law
and Commandments.
GoDrex
"Kate" <katecol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161474063.5...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
that doesn't seem stupid to you? I mean a god that can create everything and
is such a douche? Seems pretty stupid to me. Why does he need our worship? I
guess I'll never understand that part.
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
off while children are being rape and murdered
has the all-powerful; sky pixie healed amputees yet ?
death to the child killing christian god .
Kate
of the entire population from adults to children and beasts- like I
said God is not Omni-benevolent. That doesn't matter God covets the
worship of His creation and of humans who were created to be a race of
priests to serve Him. We were placed over the angels after all for a
reason our souls and the free will to serve Him.
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <1161474063.5...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
>Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful.
There is a misconception amongst theists that the 3 letter word "God"
actually means something at all.
I KILLED YOUR GOD...IT WAS EASY!
Greywolf
Do you want me to puke in this NG or wait until I get offline?
Are you for real? Where in the hell is your head, girl? In the toilet? You
have absolutely NO proof for the drivel you're espousing. And you're
suggesting that we all grovel for a 'God' that isn't worth two teaspoons of
my piss on *top* of it! You are goofy.
Okay, okay. Maybe I'm being a little to melodramatic here. But what in the
world would want you to worship and 'honor' his God-ness for? He's an
immoral jerk of the first order. He is not worth groveling for. But more
importantly: He doesn't exist, little lady.
I will say this for Mr. 'I'm As Imaginary As You Can Possibly Get': He's a
first-rate imaginary actor! His pretending to be non-existent is absolutely
scintillating! Bravo! He sure has *me* convinced. Now why don't you ask
Laurence Olivier, Jr. to step forward and take some bows? What? He can't do
that? Well, why not? Is he still immersed in his role, or is he also a
part-time 'magician' makes himself disappear? Wait a minute! He isn't
*really* imaginary and non-existent now, is he?
'We serve 'God' and 'God' does not serve us.' What? Were you smokin' some of
that wacky-tabbacky when you composed your little ditty? Ugh! I better move
on to another post. My stomach is feeling mighty queasy at the moment. This
groveling for an imaginary, sadistic and malevolent non-existent deity on
the part of a brainwashed brainwasher makes me nauseous.
Greywolf
Stephen Knight
wrote:
>God Himself wiped out the First Born of Egypt and ordered the killing
>of the entire population from adults to children and beasts- like I
>said God is not Omni-benevolent.
The Egyptians were meticulous records keepers. They wrote
everything down. As did the Romans.
How come there isn't the slightest mention of the Egyptian 'first
born' dying during the time frame of the bible? Also, no mention of
the mass dying of livestock.
In an culture depending on livestock for their very existence, and
the mass killing of such... not one word.
Of course, you could say your god erased all the evidence because
of 'his mysterious ways', and decided to be exactly, positively
non-existent.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Kate
added the atheists only becasue they assume in many cases Christians
think God in Omni-benevolent.
As for the Ten Plagues it would not be the first time a people rewrote
their history to cover up things they did not want the world to
remember. Its quite possible the Egyptains refused to acknowledge the
wrath of God and the Hebrew peoples did. One kept no recorded evidence
and the other did its called the Book of the Exodus.
But face it even if you did find a record a tomb with the story, a
pillar of hieroglyphics or some other evidence you would refute it.
Atheists would deny any solid evidence a miracle occured.
Lucifer
THERE. IS. NO. GOD. Understand?
Now FOAD, and take this shit with you.
--
Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
mayo...@gmail.com
Repeating this vile trash will not make it true. You contaminate the
world with this shit and just accept what you have been told to think.
Why not take a course in HOW to think and then look at what you are
doing.
the first part of your title is true
God is not.
Psychonomist
Rusty Sites
> There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
> Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful. I'll clearly accept the
> OT accounts and the Revelation as evidence to this God shows mercy ONLY
> to those He deems worthy and who accept Him as their Lord.
Read the Old Testament again. He likes Hebrews plain and simple. The
others he orders slaughtered, with his assistance, or kills with
pestilence. You have to wonder. He does rain fire or hurl lightening
bolts on occasion, so why does he have his lackeys, human or insect, do
the dirty work for him? Why have Joshua play ring around the rosey with
the walls of Jericho just so they fall down and his guys can slaughter
the inhabitants? Is this all just some sort of sadistic entertainment
for him?
Being bathed
> in the redeeming blood of Jesus His beloved Son that sacrificed His
> life for mankinds sin will wash away our evil.
Did you ever stop and consider how ridiculous that sounds? Jesus gets
nailed to a cross, so our sins are now OK with god? God needs to have
his son brutally executed so he can forgive us? How does that make any
sense? Bathing in blood is redeeming? It sounds so barbaric.
To those that could not
> know the Law of God such as pagans unaware of the Judeo-Christian
> concepts and later of jesus they will be judged fairly according to the
> Natural Light of Understanding in the conscience of men. Their works
> and deeds tempered by Gods mercy will be the weight of their Judgement.
Natural Light of Understanding? Does this mean this understanding can't
occur indoors or under the lights at night? Apparently, if you were
fortunate enough never to be subjected to the teachings of the Christian
religion so you could never judge it all to be utterly preposterous, you
have a chance with god. Do you really think a being capable of creating
the universe and all that is in it and who is omnipotent and omniscient
would want to spend all of eternity with people who spout this sort of
drivel?
>
> But to others God is the Final Judge and often poured out His wrath on
> humanity through use of His power directly (10 Plagues of Egypt),
> through actions of His servants on Earth or through nature. He may test
> us with trials such as Job or by allowing bad things to happen to the
> Christian. But the world is better off right now His hand is held back
> as God protects His people by restraining His wrath.
He does seem to have a very violent temper. Remember, his people are
the Hebrews. If you want some cover, you better hang out with them.
In the Revelation
> after the Anti-Christ is revealed God will lift His protection and
> Satan will be allowed to work then God will unleash the Final
> Judgements upon all the world. Does that sound like a benevolent God?
> It doesn't to me either so God is not all benevolent.
Ah, God and Satan. What a team. The ultimate good cop, bad cop routine.
>
> But God is God and as the creator of all we only must worship Him and
> honor Him, we serve God and God does not serve us. And for those too
> proud to accept that then the wrath poured out upon your heads will be
> earned by your treachery in failing to accept God as your Master.
>
> As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God. Rather God sets
> the morality He demands we follow to the best of our ability His Law
> and Commandments.
As humans, we have to create laws to govern and protect ourselves. God
never seems to show up to help. It is always people who say they
represent god either directly or through the interpretation of what they
say is his word. It is never god who rules but, if we are stupid enough
to allow it, people who claim to represent god.
>
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Olrik
You don't really believe that, do you? Read your comment carefully.
You'll find it quite funny.
Olrik
Kate
wrote:
>There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
It's immoral to lie.
You have no idea what a god says. No god has ever shown any evidence
of being real.
Too bad. Most people care about other people and don't need a big bad
mean god to make them not abuse others. What's your problem?
Greywolf
> Excuse me I did post this mainly ona site SUPPOSEDLY for Christians I
> added the atheists only becasue they assume in many cases Christians
> think God in Omni-benevolent.
So do my observations remain any less true? Does 'God' become any more
'real' when discussing 'It' in a 'Christian' NG?
>
> As for the Ten Plagues it would not be the first time a people rewrote
> their history to cover up things they did not want the world to
> remember.
There *is* the possibility the possibility of the 'Ten Plagues' being as
bogus as Mt. 27:50-53, is there not?
Its quite possible the Egyptains refused to acknowledge the
> wrath of God and the Hebrew peoples did.
It's also quite possible that most of the stuff is phony-baloney too.
One kept no recorded evidence
> and the other did its called the Book of the Exodus.
>
> But face it even if you did find a record a tomb with the story, a
> pillar of hieroglyphics or some other evidence you would refute it.
Not necessarily. It depends on how authentic the 'evidence' is. That,
however, doesn't mean what was recorded is actually true. If it records
events that are patently ridiculous -- like people flapping their arms and
are able to fly, I'm not going to believe it. And neither should you! You
should use your head.
> Atheists would deny any solid evidence a miracle occured.
>
Standing atheist challenge: Put an amputee in front of us, have all you
Jesus people pray fervently, in unison, and with the utmost sincerity and
intense devoutness mere mortals can muster; and cause that amputated limb be
restored 'miraculously'. If you Jesus people can do that, you'd have
countless atheists throw their disbelief into a cesspool and change their
'wayward' ways. If you can't 'coax' your 'God' to do something so
'positive', he either isn't worth two drops of my piss, or he doesn't exist.
If you're going to say 'He' is out there somewhere, it's up to you to prove
it. You shouldn't expect us atheists to believe -- let alone worship and
adore -- something as despicable as the biblical 'God' because it'll make us
feel all warm and 'fuzzy'. He's absolutely putrid; a bowl of snots; dog
diahrrea -- on a hotdog bun. Oh. I *really* meant to say, 'make-believe'.
If he exists, why don't you tell us atheists how we could possibly detect
him? A flashlight or a mass spectrometer? By moonlight or a software
program?
Greywolf
Greywolf
"Olrik" <olri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161487608.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well you *do* have that freedom to kiss imaginary 'God's' ass if you want.
It's just that he has the freedom to roast your sorry ass in hell for
eternity if you don't.
Greywolf
Denis Loubet
Clearly the only moral response to such a god is to spend every waking
moment searching for a means of destroying the god.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
kope2
i am a radical muslim please read my blog.
Michael Gray
<woo...@comcast.net> wrote:
- Refer: <o8jlj29bt12b25ta9...@4ax.com>
>On 21 Oct 2006 17:31:56 -0700, "Kate" <katecol...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>God Himself wiped out the First Born of Egypt and ordered the killing
>>of the entire population from adults to children and beasts- like I
>>said God is not Omni-benevolent.
>
> The Egyptians were meticulous records keepers. They wrote
>everything down.
Not *everything*.
They neglected to log any of their military defeats.
I bet that you cannot find mention of a single one in ancient Egyptian
records.
>As did the Romans.
Don't forget viticulture, Reg.
panam...@hotmail.com
Kate wrote:
> There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
> Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful.
Then it is an immoral creature, torturing humans for its own amusement.
If it exists, it must be hunted down and destroyed.
Personally, I don't think it's going to be a problem-because there is
no evidence it exists.
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Lucifer
Kate wrote:
> Excuse me I did post this mainly ona site SUPPOSEDLY for Christians I
> added the atheists only becasue they assume in many cases Christians
> think God in Omni-benevolent.
>
> As for the Ten Plagues it would not be the first time a people rewrote
> their history to cover up things they did not want the world to
> remember. Its quite possible the Egyptains refused to acknowledge the
> wrath of God and the Hebrew peoples did. One kept no recorded evidence
> and the other did its called the Book of the Exodus.
>
> But face it even if you did find a record a tomb with the story, a
> pillar of hieroglyphics or some other evidence you would refute it.
> Atheists would deny any solid evidence a miracle occured.
Why don't you try to provide some, then perhaps we can have a crack at
it, until then, piss off.
--
Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
>
>
Lucifer
Denis Loubet wrote:
> "Kate" <katecol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1161477116.4...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > God Himself wiped out the First Born of Egypt and ordered the killing
> > of the entire population from adults to children and beasts- like I
> > said God is not Omni-benevolent. That doesn't matter God covets the
> > worship of His creation and of humans who were created to be a race of
> > priests to serve Him. We were placed over the angels after all for a
> > reason our souls and the free will to serve Him.
>
> Clearly the only moral response to such a god is to spend every waking
> moment searching for a means of destroying the god.
Seems reasonable, luckily, it doesn't exist, or hell, I would.
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and
General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
>
>
panam...@hotmail.com
Your evil twin is the problem, Kate. The OP had me confused for a
little bit. Glad you showed up to clear up this mess..<g>
Greywolf
She also didn't catch that 'coveting worship' is exceedingly vain. I wonder
what his 'God-ness' had to say about 'vanity'.
Greywolf
Kate
Maybe more pathetic than evil. Is there a category for pathetic twin?
Greywolf
"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4546e66d....@news-west.newscene.com...
I too was a little mystified by the name and 'unsettling' post. (I actually
thought at first that you were merely 'playing'; just having a little fun.
My world is back in order now. Whew!)
Greywolf
Chris Johnson
Kate wrote:
> There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
> Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful. I'll clearly accept the
> OT accounts and the Revelation as evidence to this God shows mercy ONLY
> to those He deems worthy and who accept Him as their Lord. Being bathed
> in the redeeming blood of Jesus His beloved Son that sacrificed His
> life for mankinds sin will wash away our evil. To those that could not
> know the Law of God such as pagans unaware of the Judeo-Christian
> concepts and later of jesus they will be judged fairly according to the
> Natural Light of Understanding in the conscience of men. Their works
> and deeds tempered by Gods mercy will be the weight of their Judgement.
>
> But to others God is the Final Judge and often poured out His wrath on
> humanity through use of His power directly (10 Plagues of Egypt),
> through actions of His servants on Earth or through nature. He may test
> us with trials such as Job or by allowing bad things to happen to the
> Christian. But the world is better off right now His hand is held back
> as God protects His people by restraining His wrath. In the Revelation
> after the Anti-Christ is revealed God will lift His protection and
> Satan will be allowed to work then God will unleash the Final
> Judgements upon all the world. Does that sound like a benevolent God?
> It doesn't to me either so God is not all benevolent.
And you, uh, worship this thing?
> But God is God and as the creator of all we only must worship Him and
> honor Him, we serve God and God does not serve us. And for those too
> proud to accept that then the wrath poured out upon your heads will be
> earned by your treachery in failing to accept God as your Master.
>
> As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God. Rather God sets
> the morality He demands we follow to the best of our ability His Law
> and Commandments.
So if your god told you to kill your mother, would you do it? What if
it said it had to be through a slow, torturous evisceration? What if it
told you to begin feasting on her entrails before she's even dead? What
if it told you to gather all of your children around, and explain to
them that they'll get to do this to you some day? What if it told you
to smile while doing all this?
I'll assume you're not going to say "Well of course I'd do it", and
preemptively say that this illustrates the flaw in your system. Humans
are quite capable of judging the morality of various concepts, no
matter their source. So saying that you "don't set the morality to
judge God" is absurd. Of course you do. You're simply rationalizing the
monstrosities in your book, which is very easy to do since the
monstrosities carried out in your gods name have always been far away
and long ago.
In the off chance that you do say "Well of course I'd do it", I'd like
you to print out this post, take it to a doctor and say "I need help."
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian
Not many morontheists are that honest.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
panam...@hotmail.com
LOL! Let's make one!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22pathetic+twin%22
-PF, numbaz, etc.
raven1
wrote:
>But God is God and as the creator of all we only must worship Him and
>honor Him,
Why would a purportedly omnipotent deity want to be worshiped and
honored in the first place, much less served?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Richo
Kate wrote:
> But God is God and as the creator of all we only must worship Him and
> honor Him, we serve God and God does not serve us.
I could never willing serve your evil God.
Mark.
Michael Gray
- Refer: <45480064....@news-west.newscene.com>
Yes: its "Jeb"
Doc Smartass
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
> Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful.
There's a misconception that gawd exists, you mean.
--
Doc Smartass
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people
who must use the words. - Philip K. Dick
Doc Smartass
@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> God Himself wiped out the First Born of Egypt and ordered the killing
> of the entire population from adults to children and beasts- like I
> said God is not Omni-benevolent. That doesn't matter God covets the
> worship of His creation and of humans who were created to be a race of
> priests to serve Him. We were placed over the angels after all for a
> reason our souls and the free will to serve Him.
Look, will you stop this stuff? My bullshit filter is full and I don't get
paid till Friday.
Doc Smartass
news:mhamj2t4q846ufcpa...@4ax.com:
Actually, Jughead's the smarter brother (for what it's worth). Chimp's
the pathetic one.
Saw a pic of Chimp, Jughead, and Pappy on the day the USS Pappy Bush
carrier was commissioned. The three of them coming down a gangplank, and
Chimp's got a "Daddy, kin we ride yer boat? I wanna go blow sumpin' up!"
look on his mug.
William Wingstedt
wrote:
>There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
>Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful. I'll clearly accept the
>OT accounts and the Revelation as evidence to this God shows mercy ONLY
>to those He deems worthy and who accept Him as their Lord.
The god characteristic of omni-benevolence is trumped by its
omni-insoucience. These two qualities add up to equal non-existence.
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
the bible shall we?
the "evil" satan versus the "loving, caring" christian god
Let's see, the loving, caring christian god character drowned the whole
world, killed the firstborn of Egypt as well as its army after a
devastating series of plagues,
ordered and personally participated in the slaughter of countless
individuals during a genocidal rampage of his chosen people, fathered a
son specifically to be killed, and personally tortured a poor slob named
Job on a bet, and don't forget about demanding that Abraham MURDER his only
son.
The dreaded satan character did... Uhh... I don't know. I suppose he might
have killed someone at some point, but I'm not sure.
The satan character is a sweetheart compared to the evil monster character
called the christian god.
Kate
or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
Kate
divine wrath at times its right for Him to do so.
And Abraham didn't MURDER Issac it was a test of his faith.
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
>I said God is not Omni-benevolent if He chose to strike out with His
> divine wrath at times its right for Him to do so.
>
> And Abraham didn't MURDER Issac it was a test of his faith.
the christian sky pixie needed an ego boost, the christian sky pixie said
watch this,
I can get this abraham character to MURDER his only son.
Thankfully the angels were there to stop the COLD-HEARTED BASTARD christian
god from committing murder that time.
I guess the angels were too busy taking a shit or something when the loving,
caring christian god demanded that Andrea Yates MURDER her children.
Why does your sky pixie god insist on children being MURDERED just so he can
get an ego boost ?
Dichard Rawkins
> I said God is not Omni-benevolent if He chose to strike out with His
> divine wrath at times its right for Him to do so.
Right in what sense? You just said he is not omnibenevolent, so that implies he
sometimes does things that are not right.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2901
[ Followup-To: alt.religion.christian ]
Chris Johnson
Kate wrote:
> Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
> or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
> of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
Please don't top post, and please get help. You're a danger to everyone
around you, and apparently a hallucination is all it would take to set
you off.
Chris Johnson
In response to:
> > So if your god told you to kill your mother, would you do it? What if
> > it said it had to be through a slow, torturous evisceration? What if it
> > told you to begin feasting on her entrails before she's even dead? What
> > if it told you to gather all of your children around, and explain to
> > them that they'll get to do this to you some day? What if it told you
> > to smile while doing all this?
Kate wrote:
> Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
> or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
> of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
Seconds?
Liz
news message <1161531703.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
>or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
>of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
Kate, you are an evil person and/or insane. I suggest an evaluation
to determine if you are a danger to others.
Liz #658 BAAWA
4th Law: Most people cannot imagine a god morally superior
to themselves; if you want to know what such a person would
do if they had ultimate power, ask them about their deity.
-- Abner Mintz
Gandalf Grey
> There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is not
> Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful. I'll clearly accept the
> OT accounts and the Revelation as evidence to this God shows mercy ONLY
> to those He deems worthy and who accept Him as their Lord.
And if you're a Calvinist it's still a toss up as to whether or not this
blood-thirsty 'god' will show mercy even to those who attempt to worship his
sorry ass.
Your god is not worthy of worship.
Gandalf Grey
> Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
> or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
> of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
Any being willing to 'test your faith' in such a way isn't worthy of
worship.
zambon...@knowshpamatyahoo.com
>Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
>or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
>of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
One would think that a "god" would already know the answer. At any
rate, you are a danger to yourself or others. Seek professional help
immediately.
--
zamboni30000
I swear...there are days that I get down on my knees and thank almighty god that I'm an atheist!
zamboni #2139
Kate
wrote:
>Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
>or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
>of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
So you are an evil person who values her lies before others.
Don't come near me or my family. And tell your God not to either.
Kate
come to me I would obey. But it must be a divine event to cause that
Him contacting me in a divine manifestation.
Chris Johnson
Kate wrote:
> Why followers who honor God are to obey God. IF He or His angle did
> come to me I would obey. But it must be a divine event to cause that
> Him contacting me in a divine manifestation.
Get help. Stop top posting. Write coherent sentences.
In that order.
Doc Smartass
news:1161536752....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Seconded.
Wow, what scary people there are on the planet.
And to think...they're afraid of atheists.
Doc Smartass
news:1161550435....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Why followers who honor God are to obey God. IF He or His angle did
> come to me I would obey. But it must be a divine event to cause that
> Him contacting me in a divine manifestation.
Look out Cool Kate! Weird Kate might have a knife!
--
Doc "Sir Robin" Smartass gets ready to heroically throw a random person at
Weird Kate and bravely run like hell
Pangur Ban
>
Chris, I was nominated for a TQOTM. I assumed and was assured it was a
compliment. If I am going to be placed in the same catagory as Kate, how
do I go about getting my nomination and seconds removed? I do not wish
my beliefs to be associated with hers in any way, shape, fashion, or
form..... not even in the same catagory. Guilt by association, and all
that.
Pangur - nonchristian theist
Chris Johnson
TQOTM is reserved for outstanding theist posts. Generally speaking,
they are outstandingly illogical, frightening, or nonsensical, but we
also nominate those posts by theists that we consider to be highly
thoughtful.
While it can be a compliment or an insult, in your case it was most
certainly a compliment, and we are capable of distinguishing the two.
In my estimation, you have established yourself as one of the more
reasonable and thoughtful theists we have around here.
If you still feel you'd rather not be associated with folks like Kate
(the pathetic one) or duke, ping *nemo* and see if he'll remove it.
Kate
wrote:
>Why followers who honor God are to obey God. IF He or His angle did
>come to me I would obey. But it must be a divine event to cause that
>Him contacting me in a divine manifestation.
Which has never happened.
And you have no basis to believe it ever did, unless you lie to
yourself
Morality based on lies is not morality.
Kate
<gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
>"Kate" <katecol...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:1161550435....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Why followers who honor God are to obey God. IF He or His angle did
>> come to me I would obey. But it must be a divine event to cause that
>> Him contacting me in a divine manifestation.
>
>Look out Cool Kate! Weird Kate might have a knife!
LOL
Pangur Ban
Thank you, those are two qualities I value.
>
> If you still feel you'd rather not be associated with folks like Kate
> (the pathetic one) or duke, ping *nemo* and see if he'll remove it.
You sound certain that anyone in the future will be able read and
separate my post from hers. If that it is indeed the case.... I guess
it should be left. As a contrast?
Thank you for the quick response. I very much appreciate it and the
information you gave.... especially the reminder that you all are
perfectly capable of distinguishing between the types of posts. I had a
"knee-jerk" reaction and fired off my post before thinking it through.
Apology offered.
Pangur - nonchristian theist
Chris Johnson
Accepted.
Uncle Clover
Nah, you're one of the sane ones (or _more_ sane, perhaps I should say? <G>).
We can tell. Anyone who partakes of the AQOTM and TQOTM contests can spot very
quickly which TQsOTM were nominated in order to be mocked, and which were
nominated because the expressed sentiment was genuinely appreciated. You won't
be seen in the same light as those whom some of us enjoy ridiculing, not to
worry. :-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is that its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
Randy Day
[snip]
> Chris, I was nominated for a TQOTM. I assumed and was assured it was a
> compliment.
In your case, it was. Quotes get nominated
for a variety of reasons.
> If I am going to be placed in the same catagory as Kate, how
> do I go about getting my nomination and seconds removed?
Get in touch with nemo. If you can't find a
message of his to reply to, post a message
with TQOTM in the header. That's how he
locates nominations.
> I do not wish
> my beliefs to be associated with hers in any way, shape, fashion, or
> form..... not even in the same catagory. Guilt by association, and all
> that.
There are no 'categories' for TQOTM; it's a
popular vote off of a list of quotes. Some
get nominated for their reasonableness, some
for their sheer zaniness or rampant,
unapologetic hypocrisy. The winners depend
on the mood of the voters at voting time.
A resonable theist quote is like a fine wine;
we do like to savor its quality. And rarity.
> Pangur - nonchristian theist
--
R
Atheist Chair,
EAC Disciplinary Committee
Liz
>> Pangur Ban wrote:
>> While it can be a compliment or an insult, in your case it was most
>> certainly a compliment, and we are capable of distinguishing the two.
>> In my estimation, you have established yourself as one of the more
>> reasonable and thoughtful theists we have around here.
>
>Thank you, those are two qualities I value.
>> If you still feel you'd rather not be associated with folks like Kate
>> (the pathetic one) or duke, ping *nemo* and see if he'll remove it.
>
>You sound certain that anyone in the future will be able read and
>separate my post from hers. If that it is indeed the case.... I guess
>it should be left. As a contrast?
>
>Thank you for the quick response. I very much appreciate it and the
>information you gave.... especially the reminder that you all are
>perfectly capable of distinguishing between the types of posts. I had a
>"knee-jerk" reaction and fired off my post before thinking it through.
>Apology offered.
I'm glad you reconsidered. We get too many of the irrational
believers and not so many of the thoughtful ones here in a.a. It is
refreshing to read a theist like you. And we can tell the difference.
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
Michael Gray
<gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <Xns98643124FD4C...@216.77.188.18>
>Michael Gray <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in
>news:mhamj2t4q846ufcpa...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 22 Oct 2006 00:26:04 -0500, cob...@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
>> - Refer: <45480064....@news-west.newscene.com>
>>>On 21 Oct 2006 22:13:55 -0700, panam...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Kate wrote:
>>>>> On 21 Oct 2006 16:41:03 -0700, "Kate" <katecol...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >There is a misconception among Atheists and some Christians God is
>>>>> >not Omni-benevolent as in all good and mercieful. I'll clearly
>>>>> >accept the OT accounts and the Revelation as evidence to this God
>>>>> >shows mercy ONLY to those He deems worthy and who accept Him as
>>>>> >their Lord. Being bathed in the redeeming blood of Jesus His
>>>>> >beloved Son that sacrificed His life for mankinds sin will wash
>>>>> >away our evil. To those that could not know the Law of God such as
>>>>> >pagans unaware of the Judeo-Christian concepts and later of jesus
>>>>> >they will be judged fairly according to the Natural Light of
>>>>> >Understanding in the conscience of men. Their works and deeds
>>>>> >tempered by Gods mercy will be the weight of their Judgement.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >But to others God is the Final Judge and often poured out His
>>>>> >wrath on humanity through use of His power directly (10 Plagues of
>>>>> >Egypt), through actions of His servants on Earth or through
>>>>> >nature. He may test us with trials such as Job or by allowing bad
>>>>> >things to happen to the Christian. But the world is better off
>>>>> >right now His hand is held back as God protects His people by
>>>>> >restraining His wrath. In the Revelation after the Anti-Christ is
>>>>> >revealed God will lift His protection and Satan will be allowed to
>>>>> >work then God will unleash the Final Judgements upon all the
>>>>> >world. Does that sound like a benevolent God? It doesn't to me
>>>>> >either so God is not all benevolent.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >and honor Him, we serve God and God does not serve us. And for
>>>>> >those too proud to accept that then the wrath poured out upon your
>>>>> >heads will be earned by your treachery in failing to accept God as
>>>>> >your Master.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >As a Christian I don't set the morality to judge God. Rather God
>>>>> >sets the morality He demands we follow to the best of our ability
>>>>> >His Law and Commandments.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no idea what a god says. No god has ever shown any
>>>>> evidence of being real.
>>>>>
>>>>> Too bad. Most people care about other people and don't need a big
>>>>> bad mean god to make them not abuse others. What's your problem?
>>>>
>>>>Your evil twin is the problem, Kate. The OP had me confused for a
>>>>little bit. Glad you showed up to clear up this mess..<g>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe more pathetic than evil. Is there a category for pathetic twin?
>>
>> Yes: its "Jeb"
>
>Actually, Jughead's the smarter brother (for what it's worth). Chimp's
>the pathetic one.
>
>Saw a pic of Chimp, Jughead, and Pappy on the day the USS Pappy Bush
>carrier was commissioned. The three of them coming down a gangplank, and
>Chimp's got a "Daddy, kin we ride yer boat? I wanna go blow sumpin' up!"
>look on his mug.
It would be amusing if it were not so tragic in it's boding for
humanity.
Michael Gray
<gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <Xns9864A98D1375...@216.77.188.18>
>"Chris Johnson" <effi...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:1161536752....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> In response to:
>>> > So if your god told you to kill your mother, would you do it? What
>>> > if it said it had to be through a slow, torturous evisceration?
>>> > What if it told you to begin feasting on her entrails before she's
>>> > even dead? What if it told you to gather all of your children
>>> > around, and explain to them that they'll get to do this to you some
>>> > day? What if it told you to smile while doing all this?
>>
>> Kate wrote:
>>> Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
>>> or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
>>> of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
>>
>> Seconds?
>
>Seconded.
>
>Wow, what scary people there are on the planet.
>
>And to think...they're afraid of atheists.
And psychiatrists.
Pangur Ban
news:l3U_g.174302$1T2.129299@pd7urf2no:
>
>> Chris, I was nominated for a TQOTM. I assumed and was assured it was
>> a compliment.
>
> In your case, it was. Quotes get nominated for a variety of reasons.
>
>> If I am going to be placed in the same catagory as Kate, how do I go
>> about getting my nomination and seconds removed?
>
> Get in touch with nemo. If you can't find a message of his to reply
> to, post a message with TQOTM in the header. That's how he locates
> nominations.
>
>> I do not wish my beliefs to be associated with hers in any way,
>> shape, fashion, or form..... not even in the same catagory. Guilt by
>> association, and all that.
>
> There are no 'categories' for TQOTM; it's a popular vote off of a list
> of quotes. Some get nominated for their reasonableness, some for their
> sheer zaniness or rampant, unapologetic hypocrisy. The winners depend
> on the mood of the voters at voting time.
Oh. I had to ask what TQOTM meant when nominated; obviously I know
virtually nothing about this. I haven't been on the ng for very long.
If I may ask.... are these quotes kept somewhere online? Can anyone see
them or is special permission required? How long are the quotes
maintained? Are the posters identified in any way other than their
posting id? Is a list of nominated quotes posted to the entire group?
> A resonable theist quote is like a fine wine; we do like to savor its
> quality. And rarity.
*smile* Pangur - nonchristian theist....who appreciates your response
Pangur Ban
news:4r1oj2tfk0fnol13f...@4ax.com:
Pffffttttttt! LOL
We can tell. Anyone who partakes of the AQOTM and TQOTM
> contests can spot very quickly which TQsOTM were nominated in order to
> be mocked, and which were nominated because the expressed sentiment
> was genuinely appreciated. You won't be seen in the same light as
> those whom some of us enjoy ridiculing, not to worry. :-) --
Thanks for the additional reassurance. I really should have thought my
post over before sending; I truly am learning what a civilized and
decent group this is - well... every barrel has its rotten apples
though, doesn't it?
Pangur - nonchristian theist
Pangur Ban
news:df4oj211udvhbhvjt...@4ax.com:
*nod* as Chris reminded me - you can tell the difference. I suppose
not having been here very long....but I am learning!
Pangur - nonchristian theist
Chris Johnson
Pangur Ban wrote:
> Randy Day <rand...@shaw.cax> wrote in
> news:l3U_g.174302$1T2.129299@pd7urf2no:
> > Pangur Ban wrote: [snip]
> >
> >> Chris, I was nominated for a TQOTM. I assumed and was assured it was
> >> a compliment.
> >
> > In your case, it was. Quotes get nominated for a variety of reasons.
> >
> >> If I am going to be placed in the same catagory as Kate, how do I go
> >> about getting my nomination and seconds removed?
> >
> > Get in touch with nemo. If you can't find a message of his to reply
> > to, post a message with TQOTM in the header. That's how he locates
> > nominations.
> >
> >> I do not wish my beliefs to be associated with hers in any way,
> >> shape, fashion, or form..... not even in the same catagory. Guilt by
> >> association, and all that.
> >
> > There are no 'categories' for TQOTM; it's a popular vote off of a list
> > of quotes. Some get nominated for their reasonableness, some for their
> > sheer zaniness or rampant, unapologetic hypocrisy. The winners depend
> > on the mood of the voters at voting time.
>
> Oh. I had to ask what TQOTM meant when nominated; obviously I know
> virtually nothing about this. I haven't been on the ng for very long.
> If I may ask.... are these quotes kept somewhere online? Can anyone see
> them or is special permission required?
alt-atheism.org, run by Mark Bilbo, has the winners, but it has been
down since Hurricane Katrina. He's recently relocated, so it might
still be a while before it's back up.
> How long are the quotes
> maintained? Are the posters identified in any way other than their
> posting id? Is a list of nominated quotes posted to the entire group?
Yes. Nemo posts once a month. Atheist members of alt.atheism vote and
nemo will post the results. (I don't know if reasonable theists are
allowed to vote, you'll have to run that one by nemo.)
Doc Smartass
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:49:43 GMT, Doc Smartass
> <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
> - Refer: <Xns98643124FD4C...@216.77.188.18>
>>Michael Gray <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in
>>news:mhamj2t4q846ufcpa...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 22 Oct 2006 00:26:04 -0500, cob...@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
>>> - Refer: <45480064....@news-west.newscene.com>
(hope I got the names right)
>>>>Maybe more pathetic than evil. Is there a category for pathetic
twin?
>>>
>>> Yes: its "Jeb"
>>
>>Actually, Jughead's the smarter brother (for what it's worth). Chimp's
>>the pathetic one.
>>
>>Saw a pic of Chimp, Jughead, and Pappy on the day the USS Pappy Bush
>>carrier was commissioned. The three of them coming down a gangplank,
and
>>Chimp's got a "Daddy, kin we ride yer boat? I wanna go blow sumpin'
up!"
>>look on his mug.
>
> It would be amusing if it were not so tragic in it's boding for
> humanity.
I wonder...10 years from now, what sort of ship will the U.S.S.
Monkeyface be?
--
Doc Smartass
*nemo*
Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Chris, I was nominated for a TQOTM. I assumed and was assured it was a
> compliment. If I am going to be placed in the same catagory as Kate, how
> do I go about getting my nomination and seconds removed? I do not wish
> my beliefs to be associated with hers in any way, shape, fashion, or
> form..... not even in the same catagory. Guilt by association, and all
> that.
I won't remove your nomination from the list. I sympathize regarding the
juxtaposition of your thoughts with others you disagree with, but them's
the breaks, as some would say. Happens to me all the time, and I have
learned to live with it. This is just part of that rollercoaster ride
called "life."
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
*nemo*
Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Oh. I had to ask what TQOTM meant when nominated; obviously I know
> virtually nothing about this. I haven't been on the ng for very long.
The next vote will begin in a few days. You'll see the rules posted
along with the ballots.
> If I may ask.... are these quotes kept somewhere online?
They will be soon, I hope. The server that held them was zapped by
Katrina.
> Can anyone see them or is special permission required?
They're open to the public when they're online.
> How long are the quotes maintained?
That's a webmaster question. I don't know the specifics of the web site.
> Are the posters identified in any way other than their
> posting id?
Just the name I get with the nomination.
> Is a list of nominated quotes posted to the entire group?
They will be in a few days.
Hope this helps.
*nemo*
"Chris Johnson" <effi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. Nemo posts once a month. Atheist members of alt.atheism vote and
> nemo will post the results. (I don't know if reasonable theists are
> allowed to vote, you'll have to run that one by nemo.)
So far as I'm concerned, the rule is adamant. And I personally take a
dim view of "campaigning." Duke got banned for life partly for trying my
patience in that regard.
Les Hellawell
wrote:
>Randy Day <rand...@shaw.cax> wrote in
>news:l3U_g.174302$1T2.129299@pd7urf2no:
>> Pangur Ban wrote: [snip]
>>
>>> Chris, I was nominated for a TQOTM. I assumed and was assured it was
>>> a compliment.
>>
>> In your case, it was. Quotes get nominated for a variety of reasons.
>>
>>> If I am going to be placed in the same catagory as Kate, how do I go
>>> about getting my nomination and seconds removed?
>>
>> Get in touch with nemo. If you can't find a message of his to reply
>> to, post a message with TQOTM in the header. That's how he locates
>> nominations.
>>
>>> I do not wish my beliefs to be associated with hers in any way,
>>> shape, fashion, or form..... not even in the same catagory. Guilt by
>>> association, and all that.
>>
>> There are no 'categories' for TQOTM; it's a popular vote off of a list
>> of quotes. Some get nominated for their reasonableness, some for their
>> sheer zaniness or rampant, unapologetic hypocrisy. The winners depend
>> on the mood of the voters at voting time.
>
>Oh. I had to ask what TQOTM meant when nominated; obviously I know
>virtually nothing about this. I haven't been on the ng for very long.
>If I may ask.... are these quotes kept somewhere online? Can anyone see
>them or is special permission required? How long are the quotes
>maintained? Are the posters identified in any way other than their
>posting id? Is a list of nominated quotes posted to the entire group?
They will all be reprised at the end of the month so we can vote.
Previous ones can be found in usenet archives all you need do is
search for TQOM.
Where are the archives these days. Anybody know?
Actually I think Googling "TQOM" aught to find them though I have
not tried it. Much of what is written here appears on the internet.
Ever tried googling "Pangur Ban"? If not you are in for a shock.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Lucifer
*nemo* wrote:
> In article <Xns9864A2ABE171BPa...@63.218.45.20>,
> Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Chris, I was nominated for a TQOTM. I assumed and was assured it was a
> > compliment. If I am going to be placed in the same catagory as Kate, how
> > do I go about getting my nomination and seconds removed? I do not wish
> > my beliefs to be associated with hers in any way, shape, fashion, or
> > form..... not even in the same catagory. Guilt by association, and all
> > that.
>
> I won't remove your nomination from the list. I sympathize regarding the
> juxtaposition of your thoughts with others you disagree with, but them's
> the breaks, as some would say. Happens to me all the time, and I have
> learned to live with it. This is just part of that rollercoaster ride
> called "life."
I guess thing to remember is that the QOTMs are for those who
distinguish themselves, if it is for a positive reason, then that's a
good thing, even if other people on the list are there for negative
reasons
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and
General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
Pangur Ban
Okay - I am curious... and feel fairly certain some of the quotes will
be hilarious!
>
>> How long are the quotes maintained? Are the posters identified in
>> any way other than their posting id? Is a list of nominated quotes
>> posted to the entire group?
>
> Yes. Nemo posts once a month. Atheist members of alt.atheism vote and
> nemo will post the results. (I don't know if reasonable theists are
> allowed to vote, you'll have to run that one by nemo.)
Oh.. I didn't ask about voting.... this is a ng for atheists - their
lists, their votes. My voting would not be right.
Pangur Ban
news:nemo0037-A0F835...@news.west.earthlink.net:
> In article <1161570852.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Chris Johnson" <effi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes. Nemo posts once a month. Atheist members of alt.atheism vote and
>> nemo will post the results. (I don't know if reasonable theists are
>> allowed to vote, you'll have to run that one by nemo.)
>
> So far as I'm concerned, the rule is adamant. And I personally take a
> dim view of "campaigning." Duke got banned for life partly for trying
> my patience in that regard.
From Chis and my reply: "> Yes. Nemo posts once a month. Atheist members
of alt.atheism vote and
> nemo will post the results. (I don't know if reasonable theists are
> allowed to vote, you'll have to run that one by nemo.)
Oh. I didn't ask about voting.... this is a ng for atheists - their
lists, their votes. My voting would not be right."
Please note that Chris brought up the voting question, not I.
Is asking questions about a topic about which one knows next to nothing
considered "campaigning"? I thought I was trying to get information.
Pangur Ban
Michael Gray
<gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <Xns98652F877A1...@216.77.188.18>
Sunk.
Pangur Ban
news:nemo0037-3C9443...@news.west.earthlink.net:
> Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh. I had to ask what TQOTM meant when nominated; obviously I know
>> virtually nothing about this. I haven't been on the ng for very
>> long.
>
> The next vote will begin in a few days. You'll see the rules posted
> along with the ballots.
>
>> If I may ask.... are these quotes kept somewhere online?
>
> They will be soon, I hope. The server that held them was zapped by
> Katrina.
What a shame. The ripples from Katrina seem to spread everywhere...
>
>> Can anyone see them or is special permission required?
>
> They're open to the public when they're online.
>
>> How long are the quotes maintained?
>
> That's a webmaster question. I don't know the specifics of the web
> site.
>
>> Are the posters identified in any way other than their
>> posting id?
>
> Just the name I get with the nomination.
>
>> Is a list of nominated quotes posted to the entire group?
>
> They will be in a few days.
Should provide many laughs.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
It does and the information is much appreciated. I will enjoy watching
the procedure... and for the clever comments which I have come to
anticipate with pleasure.
Pangur Ban
Pangur Ban
news:nemo0037-1106C4...@news.west.earthlink.net:
> In article <Xns9864A2ABE171BPa...@63.218.45.20>,
> Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Chris, I was nominated for a TQOTM. I assumed and was assured it was
>> a compliment. If I am going to be placed in the same catagory as
>> Kate, how do I go about getting my nomination and seconds removed? I
>> do not wish my beliefs to be associated with hers in any way, shape,
>> fashion, or form..... not even in the same catagory. Guilt by
>> association, and all that.
>
> I won't remove your nomination from the list. I sympathize regarding
> the juxtaposition of your thoughts with others you disagree with, but
> them's the breaks, as some would say. Happens to me all the time, and
> I have learned to live with it. This is just part of that
> rollercoaster ride called "life."
>
After Chris's reminder to me that you all are quite capable of
separating the posts, I apologized to him and knew he was correct. I
fired off my initial post without thinking it through.
I didn't post a retraction for my initial request.... I didn't know one
was needed....was it?
Please understand... I have been on the ng maybe a month....I am still
learning about it. I was plopped into something (the TQOTM) about which
I knew nothing. Felt as though I was pushed into the deep end of the
pool.... If such ever happens again, I will continue my dog paddling...
understanding what is happening.
Pangur - nonchristian theist
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns9864CFA95B772Pa...@63.218.45.20>
Did someone call me? ;)
Pangur Ban
ROFL! The cat hid under the bed, the pit bull charged the living room
looking for a monster, and the two birds lost a few feathers each! I
don't usually laugh so loudly this early in the AM.
Pang
Chris Johnson
*nemo* wrote:
> In article <1161570852.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Chris Johnson" <effi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes. Nemo posts once a month. Atheist members of alt.atheism vote and
> > nemo will post the results. (I don't know if reasonable theists are
> > allowed to vote, you'll have to run that one by nemo.)
>
> So far as I'm concerned, the rule is adamant. And I personally take a
> dim view of "campaigning." Duke got banned for life partly for trying my
> patience in that regard.
Alright. I didn't remember the exact rules, but I was pretty sure
that's how it went. Thanks for clearing that one up.
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns986542E80CE83Pa...@63.218.45.20>
Think of it as an atheist baptism... ;)
Pangur Ban
news:946pj29i4gdms7n3v...@4ax.com:
> wrote:
>>Randy Day <rand...@shaw.cax> wrote in
>>news:l3U_g.174302$1T2.129299@pd7urf2no:
>>> Pangur Ban wrote: [snip]
>>>
> Actually I think Googling "TQOM" aught to find them though I have not
> tried it. Much of what is written here appears on the internet. Ever
> tried googling "Pangur Ban"? If not you are in for a shock.
I goggled and found nothing shocking. I knew the origin of Pangur Ban
years ago; I knew there was more than one internet user with the name
"Pangur Ban"; I knew posts made by me and the "other" PBs would show up.
If you had a specific "shocker" in mind, I missed it.... I went through
only the first 10 pages.
Pangur - nonchristian theist
Robibnikoff
"Kate" <katecol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161477116.4...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> God Himself wiped out the First Born of Egypt and ordered the killing
> of the entire population from adults to children and beasts- like I
> said God is not Omni-benevolent. That doesn't matter God covets the
> worship of His creation and of humans who were created to be a race of
> priests to serve Him. We were placed over the angels after all for a
> reason our souls and the free will to serve Him.
That's nice.
I hope the nurses in the home are taking good care of you.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
John Baker
I'm so mean the boogey man checks *his* closet before he goes to bed
to make sure I'm not hiding there. <G>
Robibnikoff
> Excuse me I did post this mainly ona site SUPPOSEDLY for Christians I
> added the atheists only becasue they assume in many cases Christians
> think God in Omni-benevolent.
Considering YOU added in the atheists, then perhaps you should stop whining
about the responses you receive. Idiot.
BTW, what makes you qualified to speak for your god?
Robibnikoff
> Well if God sent His angel or He clearly ordered me to kill my mother
> or torture her, yes I would I am a servant of God. It might be a test
> of faith to see I'd be willing to do it.
You would really kill your mother because of a voice in your head? That's
freakin' scary.
Please stay off the streets and away from me and my family, okay?
Robibnikoff
> Why followers who honor God are to obey God. IF He or His angle did
> come to me I would obey. But it must be a divine event to cause that
> Him contacting me in a divine manifestation.
Yeah, whatever. Get mental help as soon as possible before you become a
danger to yourself or others.
Lucifer
I'm so evil that John Baker checks HIS closet to make sure I'M not
hiding there.
Les Hellawell
wrote:
>Les Hellawell <myrubb...@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote in
>news:946pj29i4gdms7n3v...@4ax.com:
>> On 23 Oct 2006 02:18:41 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
>> wrote:
>>>Randy Day <rand...@shaw.cax> wrote in
>>>news:l3U_g.174302$1T2.129299@pd7urf2no:
>>>> Pangur Ban wrote: [snip]
>>>>
>*snip* for brevity
>>
>> Actually I think Googling "TQOM" aught to find them though I have not
>> tried it. Much of what is written here appears on the internet. Ever
>> tried googling "Pangur Ban"? If not you are in for a shock.
>
>I goggled and found nothing shocking. I knew the origin of Pangur Ban
>years ago; I knew there was more than one internet user with the name
>"Pangur Ban"; I knew posts made by me and the "other" PBs would show up.
>
>If you had a specific "shocker" in mind, I missed it.... I went through
>only the first 10 pages.
I was thinking more in terms of the volume rather than specific
content. I was quite surprised when I did a search on my name
a and found my posts cropping up on dozens of websites many
of them Christian.
John Baker
wrote:
And from now on, don't leave your damned candy wrappers in my closet.
;-)
*nemo*
Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Please note that Chris brought up the voting question, not I.
>
That's cool.
> Is asking questions about a topic about which one knows next to nothing
> considered "campaigning"? I thought I was trying to get information.
Of course not. I welcome questions and I try to answer them in as timely
a manner as I can. I merely mentioned campaigns as that is the only
nonsense I can imagine that could happen here that would get my goat.
Well, that and another thing that just came to mind that I won't mention
for fear of giving certain parties some evil ideas. {;-)
Cheers!
*nemo*
Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Please understand... I have been on the ng maybe a month....I am still
> learning about it.
Sure. We've all been newbies to this place. We can all relate, though
perhaps some might not want to. You'll get used to it. I hope you'll
stay around a while, personally. It's always good to hear from sane
people every now and then.
Later!
JessHC
*nemo* wrote:
> In article <Xns986542E80CE83Pa...@63.218.45.20>,
> Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Please understand... I have been on the ng maybe a month....I am still
> > learning about it.
>
> Sure. We've all been newbies to this place. We can all relate, though
> perhaps some might not want to. You'll get used to it. I hope you'll
> stay around a while, personally. It's always good to hear from sane
> people every now and then.
>
> Later!
There are sane people? I'm asking my therapist.
Chris Johnson
*nemo* wrote:
> In article <Xns98654001F2694Pa...@63.218.45.20>,
> Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Please note that Chris brought up the voting question, not I.
> >
> That's cool.
>
> > Is asking questions about a topic about which one knows next to nothing
> > considered "campaigning"? I thought I was trying to get information.
>
> Of course not. I welcome questions and I try to answer them in as timely
> a manner as I can. I merely mentioned campaigns as that is the only
> nonsense I can imagine that could happen here that would get my goat.
> Well, that and another thing that just came to mind that I won't mention
> for fear of giving certain parties some evil ideas. {;-)
Let's get his goat!
Pangur Ban
news:nemo0037-259165...@news.west.earthlink.net:
> In article <Xns98654001F2694Pa...@63.218.45.20>,
> Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Please note that Chris brought up the voting question, not I.
>>
> That's cool.
>
>> Is asking questions about a topic about which one knows next to
>> nothing considered "campaigning"? I thought I was trying to get
>> information.
>
> Of course not. I welcome questions and I try to answer them in as
> timely a manner as I can. I merely mentioned campaigns as that is the
> only nonsense I can imagine that could happen here that would get my
> goat. Well, that and another thing that just came to mind that I won't
> mention for fear of giving certain parties some evil ideas. {;-)
*egrin* Just ONE? And some on the ng need no help with "evil
ideas".... they come up with plenty of delightful ones all on their own.
Pangur - nonchristian theist - and thank you for the information
>
> Cheers!
>
Pangur Ban
news:nemo0037-ACA048...@news.west.earthlink.net:
> In article <Xns986542E80CE83Pa...@63.218.45.20>,
> Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Please understand... I have been on the ng maybe a month....I am
>> still learning about it.
>
> Sure. We've all been newbies to this place. We can all relate, though
> perhaps some might not want to. You'll get used to it. I hope you'll
> stay around a while, personally. It's always good to hear from sane
> people every now and then.
>
> Later!
>
Frankly, I was thinking on the way to work this AM that thus far this is
the best group I have joined on the 'net. I enjoy the many topics, the
humor!!!!!, the mostly reasonable discussions.....great fun! I do plan
to stay a while.... hrmmm...if it's good to hear from sane people, does
that mean the regulars on here aren't? LOL
Pangur
Pangur Ban
> On 23 Oct 2006 13:54:36 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Les Hellawell <myrubb...@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote in
>>news:946pj29i4gdms7n3v...@4ax.com:
>>> On 23 Oct 2006 02:18:41 GMT, Pangur Ban
>>> <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>Randy Day <rand...@shaw.cax> wrote in
>>>>news:l3U_g.174302$1T2.129299@pd7urf2no:
>>>>> Pangur Ban wrote: [snip]
>>>>>
>>*snip* for brevity
>>>
>>> Actually I think Googling "TQOM" aught to find them though I have
>>> not tried it. Much of what is written here appears on the internet.
>>> Ever tried googling "Pangur Ban"? If not you are in for a shock.
>>
>>I goggled and found nothing shocking. I knew the origin of Pangur Ban
>>years ago; I knew there was more than one internet user with the name
>>"Pangur Ban"; I knew posts made by me and the "other" PBs would show
>>up.
>>
>>If you had a specific "shocker" in mind, I missed it.... I went
>>through only the first 10 pages.
>
> I was thinking more in terms of the volume
Are you insinuating I am a motor-mouth? LOL
Pangur Ban
news:tljpj297g4ngacpms...@4ax.com:
LOL I am the founder and President of the EPS - Evil Persons Society.
Pangur Ban
> wrote:
> - Refer: <Xns986542E80CE83Pa...@63.218.45.20>
>>*nemo* <nemo...@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in
>>news:nemo0037-1106C4...@news.west.earthlink.net:
>>> In article <Xns9864A2ABE171BPa...@63.218.45.20>,
>>> Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>Please understand... I have been on the ng maybe a month....I am still
>>learning about it. I was plopped into something (the TQOTM) about
>>which I knew nothing. Felt as though I was pushed into the deep end
>>of the pool.... If such ever happens again, I will continue my dog
>>paddling...
>
> Think of it as an atheist baptism... ;)
Well, I learned very quickly there were sharks in the pool.... really
BIG ones with enormous teeth. Then being pushed into the deep end -
and not even a pair of wings (water ones).
Pangur - nonchristian theist