Is George W. Bush really a good Christian?
Rump Ranger
"Christian" is the US President? It seems like he doesn't fear God
despite the fact he says he worships him. Why is it that atheists can
live up to the Christian ideal more than a supposedly true believer
like Bush and Ashcroft can?
----------------------
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson109.html
God, Bush, and Functional Atheism
by William L. Anderson
My family and I attend a conservative Presbyterian church in a fairly
conservative place (western Maryland), so it is not surprising that our
congregation consists in large part of supporters of Republicans in
general and the George W. Bush Administration in particular. I suspect
it would be more surprising if our small Presbyterian Church in America
assembly were a mass of Democrats (or even libertarians), given the
politics of modern America.
One of the publications our church receives is Citizen, which
represents the political arm of the Focus on the Family organization
founded and run by James Dobson. Citizen is unabashedly pro-Republican,
although Dobson periodically has warned the party that it must impose a
"pro-family" agenda or Dobson will leave and take his votes elsewhere.
The latest edition of Citizen comes with a cover picture of Bush
standing in a church with a large wooden cross hanging from the wall
behind him. The photograph is supposed to convey the juxtaposition of
two important symbols, the Christian Cross (which is above Bush's
head) and the President of the United States. Yet, the look on Bush's
face is one of complete arrogance; indeed, Bush's expression
expresses the opposite of the message given by the humility of Jesus,
who died on the cross.
What I have seen in the aftermath of the election from Bush-supporting
evangelicals has been their silly belief that they have "won"
something. Yet, when one examines the record of this administration,
the term "Christian" does not come to mind. Instead, I would like to
coin the phrase "functional atheism" to describe the Bush Presidency.
While I have not used "functional atheism" in previous articles to
portray the actions of the U.S. Government under Bush, I have come
close, calling outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft, who openly
espouses his Christian beliefs, a "nihilist." What I mean by
"functional atheism" is this: the U.S. Government is a utilitarian
enterprise which operates by the simple rule of force (as opposed to a
rule of law). The concepts of "right" and "wrong" are limited to what
is useful for increasing or protecting the rule of the state, period.
The participants in the system do not deviate from those standards,
whether or not they meet the requirements of what Christians of the
past would have termed "just."
In the past week, new revelations of vast abuses of U.S. prisoners
being held in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay have appeared in the news. Yet,
many of the same people who condemn these atrocities are quite willing
to see government officials engage in the same behavior toward
Americans. While abuse, torture, and outright lying and criminal
behavior by participants in the "justice system" are common, the public
gives a collective yawn and juries continue to swallow the lies that
prosecutors feed to them. Although the accessible examples of such
behavior are legion and have been well-documented elsewhere, I will
give some of my own.
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano in a recent article gave a couple of
terrifying but all-too-typical stories of torture and abuse of people
in this country. The first involved the accusation (almost surely
false) of massive child molestation against two owners of a Florida
daycare center in 1984. The chief accuser was then-Dade County
State's Attorney Janet Reno (yes, that Janet Reno) who was in the
middle of a tough re-election campaign and was determined to get a
guilty verdict.
Reno was able to have then-18-year-old Ileana Furster, Frank
Furster's wife, held without bond. Furthermore, the young woman was
placed nude in a solitary confinement cell, being in full view of male
and female guards. In 1998, Ileana described some of her treatment:
They would give me cold showers. Two people would hold me, run me under
cold water, then throw me back in the cell naked with nothing, just a
bare floor. And I used to be cold, real cold. I would have my periods
and they would wash me and throw me back into the cell.
(Note: This action came at a time when prosecutors around the country
were engaging in child molestation witch hunts against day care owners,
the original accusations stemming from the encouragement in the 1974
Child Abuse Prevention Act, better known as the Mondale Act. It
provided federal money to states that prosecuted alleged child abuse,
and prosecutors were all-too-happy to jump into the mix. Many of the
accusations were outlandishly false, but prosecutors and their media
stooges managed to keep the enterprise going until the accusations
collapsed under the scrutiny of a particularly egregious set of charges
mounted in Wenatchee, Washington, a decade ago. However, even today,
some people are serving life terms for "child molestation" crimes they
almost certainly did not commit. Frank Furster is one of them.)
Finally, Reno began to visit Ms. Furster on a regular basis and
browbeat her with accusations and promises of a life sentence unless
she cooperated (that is, told the jury what Reno wanted her to say).
Further visits from psychiatrists who allegedly specialized in
"recovering memories" - which has turned out to be another form of
government quackery - finally got their intended results. Ileana
haltingly accused her husband in court (she has since recanted) and
Frank Furster was found guilty.
Keep in mind that this case, as well as the infamous Grant Snowden
case, in which Reno falsely accused a Miami police officer of massive
child molestation won her fame and adulation from among the Democratic
Party faithful. (Snowden received a life sentence, but the Florida
Supreme Court overturned the conviction after it said that the evidence
Reno presented amounted to fiction and her tactics were based on
torture and abuse.) In fact, Reno was so feted by the party that
Hillary Clinton successfully pushed her to be U.S. Attorney General in
1993, saying that Reno was "good on children's issues."
In other words, Reno engaged in the application of what can only be
termed torture, and the political classes loved her for it. That Reno
would set off a huge massacre at Waco a month into her tenure - and
receive public adoration for it - only confirms to me that Americans
have no problem with the state employing torture and murder, as long as
it is applied to people they deem as being unpopular or "out of the
mainstream." (Or it is not happening to them or their friends and
relatives.)
The second example involves Reno's successor, John Ashcroft. In his
recent farewell speech, Ashcroft cited the "conviction" and
imprisonment of the alleged "Lackawanna Six" as an example of a
"successful" tenure at the DOJ. As Napolitano writes, instead of awards
and self-congratulations, what should have been handed out were a
number of indictments against U.S. attorneys.
Briefly stated, the case proceeded as such: after originally calling
the accused Muslims (some of whom were American citizens) part of a
"terror cell," the government's case soon fell apart for lack of
evidence as it became obvious that the accused posed no threat and were
not planning terrorism. However, after a federal judge condemned the
government's case, U.S. attorneys told the men that if they did not
plead guilty to outlandish charges, the government would simply hold
them as "enemy combatants," which would mean the loss of due process,
no access to lawyers, and no chance of a fair trial, only summary
judgment. (Of course, one can argue that it is nearly impossible to
receive a fair trial in this country already.)
Faced with such odds, the men capitulated. Instead of condemning the
actions of government prosecutors, as someone who had sworn before God
to "protect and defend the U.S. Constitution," Ashcroft gave them
awards then bragged to the nation about the whole thing.
While atheists will disagree with me, an underlying base for the rule
of law and due process is that there is a "higher power" (or God) who
dispenses ultimate justice. For many years, a watchword in criminal
justice was "better to let 20 guilty men go free than one innocent man
to be convicted." People could believe that and live by it, since they
believed that even if a guilty person avoided justice for the time
being, he would have to face God sooner or later.
In our "sophisticated," secular society, that is no longer the case. As
a neighbor's car bumper sticker proudly proclaims, "There's only
now." In the context of criminal justice, if someone is not convicted
right now, then that person avoids justice forever. When Larry King
asked Bob Jones III, president of the Christian fundamentalist Bob
Jones University about the prospect of innocent people being executed
by the state, Jones replied that even if that were the case, that was
OK, since he believed the death penalty is a good thing. Jones gave a
utilitarian answer that the atheistic champion of utilitarianism,
Jeremy Bentham, would have applauded.
Conservative Christians are forever applauding people like Bush and
Ashcroft because they believe that the presence of such conservative
Christians gives "legitimacy" to their own religious beliefs. Yet, Bush
and his minions have not governed like Christians, but far from it, as
the record clearly demonstrates. From the demolition of Falluja to the
imprisonment of Martha Stewart and the Lackawanna Six, the Bush
Administration has governed with a cynicism that has been hard to
match. (Although, I will admit, previous administrations have set
precedents of their own. The Bushies are hardly alone in their
destructiveness; however, the Nixon and Johnson administrations did not
claim to be "Christian.")
The actions of Bush, Ashcroft, and others in this government are made
by people who apparently do not fear God. While they may claim to be
Christians - and are near-worshipped by many in the evangelical and
fundamentalist community - they govern as though they were atheists.
That is why I call them "functional atheists." And I say this with no
insult intended to atheists, many of whom have demonstrated a greater
commitment to rule of law and real justice than Bush and Ashcroft could
ever dream of doing.
Family Man
"Rump Ranger" <buttp...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103890855.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> All this talk from the Bushies got me to thinking. How much of a good
> "Christian" is the US President? It seems like he doesn't fear God
> despite the fact he says he worships him. Why is it that atheists can
> live up to the Christian ideal more than a supposedly true believer
> like Bush and Ashcroft can?
Bush used religion to gain votes, nothing more. Karl Rove used "moral
values" as a smoke screen, with issues such as gay marriage and abortion to
take the focus off of Bush's massive failures and deceptions. Bush is a
facist whore for corporate profits. His war for oil was the worst
pre-planned failure in world history and hundreds of thousands will die
because of his greed and stupidity.
Instead of fighting terror, Bush is now the poster boy for terror.
cosmi...@yahoo.com
morals than the majority of people I personally know that are
'Christian'. I believe that a bad person is a bad person regardless
if they are atheist or christian. Many bad people use religion to
cover for guilt they feel about something, and those same people are
the most zealous about converting people to be 'saved'.
I think that Bush truly thinks that God is on his side, and that is why
he doesn't fear God. His actions may be of one who doesn't fear God,
but many people have their own notions of what God 'wants'.
Christianity is filled with tons of corruption. This is not to
undermine people's beliefs, but to point out how evil people WILL take
advantage of beliefs if they can. It's not the belief in God that is
corrupt, but the belief that somehow the church/temple/mosque knows the
will of God. This is where the hypocracy lies... A God of mankind
would find no pleasure in the killing of his creations, yet all
religions seem to suffer from the 'We are right, you are wrong'
syndrome.
Bush might be 'Christian', but his actions are not 'Christian'. This
is where the importance lies. I measure people by their actions, not
their words. I see many people that claim they are Christian; live
immoral lives, yet they claim I'm going to Hell because I don't pray to
Jesus. It's pure fiction to think this way. If there IS a God, I
believe that it's logical to assume that he would also meter people by
their actions. I think it would be ridculous to send people to Hell
just because they happen to lead good lives, but don't pray to Jesus.
I personally do not believe in God, because if he did exsist he
would've stopped this killing for him long ago. If for some reason
he's letting humans murder each other because of 'freewill', he's a
very cruel deity indeed.
Religion and Government should never mix. The majority of our
problems stem from this.
-cos
Steven L.
Family Man wrote:
> "Rump Ranger" <buttp...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1103890855.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>All this talk from the Bushies got me to thinking. How much of a good
>>"Christian" is the US President? It seems like he doesn't fear God
>>despite the fact he says he worships him. Why is it that atheists can
>>live up to the Christian ideal more than a supposedly true believer
>>like Bush and Ashcroft can?
>
>
> Bush used religion to gain votes, nothing more.
Gee, I thought all you lefties knew that Bush had a drinking problem.
Becoming a born-again Christian saved his life.
FYI, Alcoholics Anonymous also uses religion to help their members
recover from alcoholism.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Family Man
<cosmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103904021.7...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Very good post. I agree 100%.
Family Man
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:ycXyd.12134$Z47....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
> Family Man wrote:
>
>> "Rump Ranger" <buttp...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1103890855.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>All this talk from the Bushies got me to thinking. How much of a good
>>>"Christian" is the US President? It seems like he doesn't fear God
>>>despite the fact he says he worships him. Why is it that atheists can
>>>live up to the Christian ideal more than a supposedly true believer
>>>like Bush and Ashcroft can?
>>
>>
>> Bush used religion to gain votes, nothing more.
>
> Gee, I thought all you lefties knew that Bush had a drinking problem.
> Becoming a born-again Christian saved his life.
>
> FYI, Alcoholics Anonymous also uses religion to help their members recover
> from alcoholism.
>
..and your point is?
fairandbalancedhyco-limbaughfartdetector
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>
>Family Man wrote:
>
>> "Rump Ranger" <buttp...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1103890855.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>All this talk from the Bushies got me to thinking. How much of a good
>>>"Christian" is the US President? It seems like he doesn't fear God
>>>despite the fact he says he worships him. Why is it that atheists can
>>>live up to the Christian ideal more than a supposedly true believer
>>>like Bush and Ashcroft can?
>>
>>
>> Bush used religion to gain votes, nothing more.
>
>Gee, I thought all you lefties knew that Bush had a drinking problem.
>Becoming a born-again Christian saved his life.
>
>FYI, Alcoholics Anonymous also uses religion to help their members
>recover from alcoholism.
>
>
you changed the subject, Steve
the subject was: "'These people honor me with their lips, but their
hearts are far from me."
Jesus, as quoted in Matthew 15:8 (Himself quoting Isaiah 29:13
Zigler
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:ycXyd.12134$Z47....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
> > "Rump Ranger" <buttp...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1103890855.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>All this talk from the Bushies got me to thinking. How much of a good
> >>"Christian" is the US President? It seems like he doesn't fear God
> >>despite the fact he says he worships him. Why is it that atheists can
> >>live up to the Christian ideal more than a supposedly true believer
> >>like Bush and Ashcroft can?
> >
> >
> > Bush used religion to gain votes, nothing more.
>
> Gee, I thought all you lefties knew that Bush had a drinking problem.
> Becoming a born-again Christian saved his life.
>
> FYI, Alcoholics Anonymous also uses religion to help their members
> recover from alcoholism.
Or more likely, cope with it and run from the true, underlying root causes.
Happens all the time. Merely a transfer of addiction. A characteristic you
do not want in your Burger King manager, let alone a fucking president...
UNTREATED alcoholic.
Zigler
"Rump Ranger" <buttp...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103890855.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "Christian" is the US President? It seems like he doesn't fear God
> despite the fact he says he worships him. Why is it that atheists can
> live up to the Christian ideal more than a supposedly true believer
> like Bush and Ashcroft can?
That is simply how it goes when an atheist listens to his own deeper
conscience and lives a good life deliberately, as opposed to someone
suffering from a religious delusion who listens to his cult masters and
lives a life based on fear, comformt and blind conformity.
Jaberwokie
your own soul. That doesn't mean that Bush is making all the right
decisions to represent the people first.
stoney
wrote:
>All this talk from the Bushies got me to thinking. How much of a good
>"Christian" is the US President? It seems like he doesn't fear God
>despite the fact he says he worships him. Why is it that atheists can
>live up to the Christian ideal more than a supposedly true believer
>like Bush and Ashcroft can?
The ability and inclaination to think as well as courage.
>----------------------
>http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson109.html
>
>God, Bush, and Functional Atheism
>by William L. Anderson
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Tock
"Steven L." wrote
> Gee, I thought all you lefties knew that Bush had a drinking problem.
> Becoming a born-again Christian saved his life.
Goes to show ya, some people are best left in the gutter . . .
-Tock
Steven L.
Zigler wrote:
There is no medicine to cure alcoholism. You have to *manage* the
illness day to day like most other chronic illnesses. Alcoholics
Anonymous is as good a treatment program as any.
Steven L.
Family Man wrote:
My point is that Bush doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve like Kerry
did. He believes deeply in God because that's how he turned his own
life around.
Steven L.
Family Man wrote:
Which only proves you haven't thought it thru:
If Religion and government should "NEVER" mix, then the only way to
ensure that is to elect only atheists to the Presidency.
Because any public official who believes in God and the moral code in
the Bible is going to be *guided* by that moral code in the policy
decisions he makes in office. You can't check your moral code at the
door when you take a job.
For example, in the 1970's, the ULTRA-LIBERAL Representative from
Massachusetts, the Jesuit priest FATHER Robert Drinan, went to work at
the House of Representatives every day wearing his clerical collar. NOT
ONE Democrat ever said that was wrong or that a priest couldn't serve in
public office. Why? Because he was a LEFT-WING priest-politician and
that was just peachy-keen with you.
"In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit
communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship
self-indulgence and consumption."
-- PRESIDENT Jimmy Carter, 1979
abelincoln
bush and the religion nazis are having oral sex with each other.
we just get to watch.
they both swallow each other's cum.
bush is as much a christian as he is a viet nam vet.
Family Man
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
That's Bullshit and you know it.
Family Man
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
That sounds great, but the fundies wouldn't vote for an Atheist. They have
been brainwashed to believe atheists are bad people who go to hell (taught
discrimination).
Bush has done his best to mix his religion with OUR government, such as
signing executive orders to pump millions into religious coffers. Bush is a
traitor.
> Because any public official who believes in God and the moral code in the
> Bible is going to be *guided* by that moral code in the policy decisions
> he makes in office. You can't check your moral code at the door when you
> take a job.
Last time I checked we weren't using the bible, we were using the
constitution and laws to govern.
> For example, in the 1970's, the ULTRA-LIBERAL Representative from
> Massachusetts, the Jesuit priest FATHER Robert Drinan, went to work at the
> House of Representatives every day wearing his clerical collar. NOT ONE
> Democrat ever said that was wrong or that a priest couldn't serve in
> public office. Why? Because he was a LEFT-WING priest-politician and
> that was just peachy-keen with you.
There are plenty of priests, pastors & reverends involved in politics. Many
do not want a mix of church and state because they know the consequences.
Bush on the other hand is so freaken stupid, he openly says dumb fucking
things like "we are a christian nation" and "god told me to invade Iraq".
The guy is a brain dead traitor.
Dick Wad
experiencing reality, about the proper or expected ways of doing things,
about values and warnings, and rules and wisdoms the elders want to impress
on the minds of their young. The punch line character of proverbs--the
shorter the better--makes it easy to commit them to memory for ready recall
when the occasion calls for serious or humorous comment or admonition.
Created by people in high and low stations, humble folk and great
authors,borrowed from ancient or neighboring cultures, proverbs have been
accumulating over many centuries. Some are only locally known; many are
shared around the world.
"Family Man" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KGWyd.4849$ce6.236@lakeread07...
Jez
>
>
> Family Man wrote:
>
>> "Rump Ranger" <buttp...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1103890855.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> All this talk from the Bushies got me to thinking. How much of a good
>>> "Christian" is the US President? It seems like he doesn't fear God
>>> despite the fact he says he worships him. Why is it that atheists can
>>> live up to the Christian ideal more than a supposedly true believer
>>> like Bush and Ashcroft can?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bush used religion to gain votes, nothing more.
>
>
> Gee, I thought all you lefties knew that Bush had a drinking problem.
> Becoming a born-again Christian saved his life.
>
> FYI, Alcoholics Anonymous also uses religion to help their members
> recover from alcoholism.
Which is worse ? Being an alcoholic, or believing in religious bullshit ?
At least alcohol is real.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Skype callto://hellward
NFS Porsche Unleashed, Hot Pursuit 2, Underground.
Yeowww
Paulo Gomes Jardim
wrote:
> If Religion and government should "NEVER" mix, then the only way to
> ensure that is to elect only atheists to the Presidency.
This is a very stupid conclusion indeed.
Even a Priest can rule a country without mixing Religion and Government,
if he's careful not to do so.
And, of course, even an atheist can rule a country in a Religious way, as
was shown in some forms of Communism - North Korea, for instance.
--
" Pallida mors aequo pulsat pede pauperum tabernas regumque turres." --
Horacio
Paulo Gomes Jardim
wrote:
> Which is worse ? Being an alcoholic, or believing in religious bullshit ?
> At least alcohol is real.
The Church and the Priest are also real.
Jez
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 08:42:40 +0000, Jez
> <iced_...@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
>
>> Which is worse ? Being an alcoholic, or believing in religious bullshit ?
>> At least alcohol is real.
>
>
> The Church and the Priest are also real.
>
Rump Ranger
Jaberwokie wrote:
> Let's let God worry about how good a Christian Bush is.
No, let's call Bush out on his bullshit. Seriously, if Bush is going
to advertise his religion for all to see, let's see if he lives by the
beliefs he says he has.
He falls short. In a big way. You don't need to be God to see that.
Just worry about
> your own soul. That doesn't mean that Bush is making all the right
> decisions to represent the people first.
>
I'm not worried about my "soul" because there's no evidence souls
exist. It's entirely possible, but even if that is, why is it that
Christianity is the only way to "save" it?
Rump Ranger
There is no "illness" called alcoholism. I had to go to AA when I was
in the Army (I had a prick of a battery commander who said he'd Article
15 me for my drinking if I didn't get "treatment") and found virtually
*everything* the AA literature said to be pure nonsense. Alcohol abuse
is a *behavioral* problem, not a spiritual one. The root causes of it
lies more in the social contract: poor, lonely, and unemployed people
have more drinking problems than rich people or people with fulfilling
lives. Alcohol provides something to the drinker that they don't think
they can get elsewhere (an escape from a reality they don't like).
Praying to God doesn't change that.
Rump Ranger
Does not follow. What that statement means is that passing *religious*
beliefs into law is a dangerous thing.
> Because any public official who believes in God and the moral code in
> the Bible is going to be *guided* by that moral code in the policy
> decisions he makes in office. You can't check your moral code at the
> door when you take a job.
>
Sadly, most actually do. Police officers, for example, often do things
which are immoral and some actually realize this. What's their defense
for going against their morals? The Nouremberg one. It's their job,
the law, and they're following orders.
Professional politicians have no scruples. They have a public "moral
code" but have none in reality. "Do as I say and not as I do."
> For example, in the 1970's, the ULTRA-LIBERAL Representative from
> Massachusetts, the Jesuit priest FATHER Robert Drinan, went to work
at
> the House of Representatives every day wearing his clerical collar.
NOT
> ONE Democrat ever said that was wrong or that a priest couldn't serve
in
> public office. Why? Because he was a LEFT-WING priest-politician
and
> that was just peachy-keen with you.
>
>
Wrong. Nobody had any problem with it because he didn't try to pass
Levitical law as American law.
> "In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit
> communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship
> self-indulgence and consumption."
> -- PRESIDENT Jimmy Carter, 1979
>
Jimmy Carter is the first to say that church and state should be
seperated. He was more or less lamenting that our culture has become
one of narcisism. It's all about me, me, me. Christians are just as
guilty as atheists are in that regard.
stoney
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>
>Family Man wrote:
>
>> "Rump Ranger" <buttp...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1103890855.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>All this talk from the Bushies got me to thinking. How much of a good
>>>"Christian" is the US President? It seems like he doesn't fear God
>>>despite the fact he says he worships him. Why is it that atheists can
>>>live up to the Christian ideal more than a supposedly true believer
>>>like Bush and Ashcroft can?
>>
>>
>> Bush used religion to gain votes, nothing more.
>
>Gee, I thought all you lefties knew that Bush had a drinking problem.
>Becoming a born-again Christian saved his life.
No, he changed drugs.
>FYI, Alcoholics Anonymous also uses religion to help their members
>recover from alcoholism.
'Jesus' gave them the problem in the first place.
stoney
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>
>Family Man wrote:
>
>> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>> news:ycXyd.12134$Z47....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>
>>>Family Man wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Rump Ranger" <buttp...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1103890855.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>All this talk from the Bushies got me to thinking. How much of a good
>>>>>"Christian" is the US President? It seems like he doesn't fear God
>>>>>despite the fact he says he worships him. Why is it that atheists can
>>>>>live up to the Christian ideal more than a supposedly true believer
>>>>>like Bush and Ashcroft can?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bush used religion to gain votes, nothing more.
>>>
>>>Gee, I thought all you lefties knew that Bush had a drinking problem.
>>>Becoming a born-again Christian saved his life.
>>>
>>>FYI, Alcoholics Anonymous also uses religion to help their members recover
>>>from alcoholism.
>>>
>>
>>
>> ..and your point is?
>
>My point is that Bush doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve
<boggle>
[]
stoney
The world would have been much better off.
>-Tock
stoney
>Atheism doesn't mean 'not-moral'. I am an atheist, and I have stronger
>morals than the majority of people I personally know that are
>'Christian'. I believe that a bad person is a bad person regardless
>if they are atheist or christian. Many bad people use religion to
>cover for guilt they feel about something, and those same people are
>the most zealous about converting people to be 'saved'.
>
>I think that Bush truly thinks that God is on his side, and that is why
>he doesn't fear God. His actions may be of one who doesn't fear God,
>but many people have their own notions of what God 'wants'.
>Christianity is filled with tons of corruption. This is not to
>undermine people's beliefs, but to point out how evil people WILL take
>advantage of beliefs if they can. It's not the belief in God that is
>corrupt, but the belief that somehow the church/temple/mosque knows the
>will of God. This is where the hypocracy lies... A God of mankind
>would find no pleasure in the killing of his creations, yet all
>religions seem to suffer from the 'We are right, you are wrong'
>syndrome.
>
>Bush might be 'Christian', but his actions are not 'Christian'.
Sure they are. Lies, hypocracy, theft, delusions, greed, murder,
deceit are all Christian 'sacraments.'
[]
>Religion and Government should never mix. The majority of our
>problems stem from this.
Which is the reason for the separation between church and state.
cosmi...@yahoo.com
>If Religion and government should "NEVER" mix, then the only way to
>ensure that is to elect only atheists to the Presidency.
I was not refering to personal beliefs. I believe that it is wrong to
force beliefs on anyone for any reason. If someone gets elected as
president, his 'church-going' and 'faith' should be his own. There
shouldn't be 20/20 coverage of him praying and he shouldn't be
discussing his beliefs on God. This only further seperates a society
that is supposedly built on 'the people', and causes rifts on issues
that shouldn't exsist.
I know that the ONLY way to be 100% certain that the nation will never
sway torwards religion is for atheist leaders. Unfortunetly, this is
simply not the only demographic of the United States. Hopefully one
day people will stop believing in BS.
-cos
Dore
>> Family Man wrote:
>>
>>> "Rump Ranger" <buttp...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1103890855.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> All this talk from the Bushies got me to thinking. How much of a good
>>>> "Christian" is the US President? It seems like he doesn't fear God
>>>> despite the fact he says he worships him. Why is it that atheists can
>>>> live up to the Christian ideal more than a supposedly true believer
>>>> like Bush and Ashcroft can?
>>>
ALL members of the wealthy social elite are EVIL. The love of money is the
ROOT of ALL EVIL, therefore ALL wealthy are the most evil on the earth.
--
Dore
"Jez" <iced_...@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:-O6dndgdiON...@pipex.net...
Grantland
>
>ALL members of the wealthy social elite are EVIL. The love of money is the
>ROOT of ALL EVIL, therefore ALL wealthy are the most evil on the earth.
>--
>Dore
Nobody is PERFECT. DORE is NOBODY, therfore DORE IS PERFECT!!
TARAAAA!
GLOBULIN!
Victoria Hirt
wrote:
>ALL members of the wealthy social elite are EVIL. The love of money is the
>ROOT of ALL EVIL, therefore ALL wealthy are the most evil on the earth.
Remember Job? He was stripped of everything he had, but because he
was faithful to God, God restored his lands, his wealth, etc. This is
only one of many stories in the Bible where wealth used correctly
isn't evil.
You said it yourself "the love of money is the ROOT of ALL EVIL."
What you missed is the part where the LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all
evil. It's not money itself that is evil.
Have you divested yourself of all worldly good and are you living on
the street living day by day totally trusting in God (lilies of the
field) to take care of you? If not, you are in the world just like
the rest of us.
Even by using a computer and internet link you are using the money
that someone has. Poor or wealthy, it all boils down to the same
thing - your relationship to God, Christ, and to your fellow man.
The only freedom tyranny offers is the freedom to submit.
FreedomAlways
wrote:
>Poor or wealthy, it all boils down to the same
>thing - your relationship to God, Christ, and to your fellow man.
>The only freedom tyranny offers is the freedom to submit.
In your Christian cult, you must submit to the power of your God and
to the guidance of Christ.
In every religious cult, the members of the cult must first submit to
the deity of choice and it's rules.
A rose by any other name...
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
>>>Family Man wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Rump Ranger" <buttp...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1103890855.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>All this talk from the Bushies got me to thinking. How much of a good
>>>>>"Christian" is the US President? It seems like he doesn't fear God
>>>>>despite the fact he says he worships him. Why is it that atheists can
>>>>>live up to the Christian ideal more than a supposedly true believer
>>>>>like Bush and Ashcroft can?
>>>>
>
>
> ROOT of ALL EVIL, therefore ALL wealthy are the most evil on the earth.
>
buddies.
Especially those useless con artist on the boob tube. And while you are
at it, you may want to take down your requests for "tax free donations"
on your web site. After all, that's one of the draws for your rich,
bible thumping, child molesting, lying, cheating, "can't pull a
splinter, much less heal cancer", preacher friends.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@getnet.net
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Al Klein
>ALL members of the wealthy social elite are EVIL. The love of money is the
>ROOT of ALL EVIL, therefore ALL wealthy are the most evil on the earth.
Then, logically, even those with just a little money are a little
evil. Thank you for the admission of guilt, Dore.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
Al Klein
<nos...@fromyou.com> said in alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 9:47:52 -0500, Victoria Hirt wrote
>(in message <4jddt0thg2bcog1uo...@4ax.com>):
>> Have you divested yourself of all worldly good and are you living on
>> the street living day by day
>Yes he is, but not because of faith or God but because he is an idiot that
>can't be capable of supporting himself. :)
"She" ... "herself". Dore is female. And claims to be the holy
trinity.
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
Dore
news:4jddt0thg2bcog1uo...@4ax.com...
> Remember Job? He was stripped of everything he had, but because he
> was faithful to God, God restored his lands, his wealth, etc. This is
> only one of many stories in the Bible where wealth used correctly
> isn't evil.
Job didn't have MONEY, he had possessions, land, animals, etc.
Job 1:3
3 His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels,
and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great
household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.
KJV
Job 42:12
12 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he
had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of
oxen, and a thousand she asses.
KJV
cont
> You said it yourself "the love of money is the ROOT of ALL EVIL."
> What you missed is the part where the LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all
> evil. It's not money itself that is evil.
Of course money is evil. It is merely a worthless piece of paper, a metal
disc, or a digit in a computer that men have faith in, and places a price on
the priceless, denying men the sustenances of life. There is NOTHING good
about money.
cont
>
> Have you divested yourself of all worldly good and are you living on
> the street living day by day totally trusting in God (lilies of the
> field) to take care of you? If not, you are in the world just like
> the rest of us.
Actually, I have. In 1990, I forsook my job, all money, all of my
possessions, homes and all to be obedient to the Word of God and lived on
the street for 3 years. But because mankind was SO EVIL, it became
unbearable and so I returned to the work force to sustain myself, to find
peace away from the wicked people who covered the earth. I still HATE money
and it's enslavement, and the ONLY reason that I am forced to seek it is
because evil men and this evil beast's system of capitalism FORCE me to,
since there are NO true Christians who are willing to give, do and work as
well as receive, FREELY, providing for each other's needs and sustenance,
and live the way God had intended. The difference between you and I is that
I KNOW that money is evil and despise it, where you defend it's use, love
and serve it willingly without complaint.
cont
>
> Even by using a computer and internet link you are using the money
> that someone has. Poor or wealthy, it all boils down to the same
> thing - your relationship to God, Christ, and to your fellow man.
> The only freedom tyranny offers is the freedom to submit.
Yes, because this evil system's beast of capitalism forces us all to. The
wealthy, just like yourself, are UNWILLING to give up anything, unwilling to
deny yourself anything, unwilling to sacrifice anything for the sake of the
kingdom of God. So, you are just as evil, as the wealthy and your
relationship with God is based on YOU and YOUR desires first, living in
worldliness and darkness and then making excuses for it.
--
Dore
"Victoria Hirt" <n...@spam.please> wrote in message
news:4jddt0thg2bcog1uo...@4ax.com...
Dore
news:0pgdt0h81gmu1s2j4...@4ax.com...
> In your Christian cult, you must submit to the power of your God and
> to the guidance of Christ.
>
> In every religious cult, the members of the cult must first submit to
> the deity of choice and it's rules.
>
> A rose by any other name...
Just as YOU submit to the cult of the power of your god, money and the
system of the beast, evil, sin and SATAN.
--
Dore
"FreedomAlways" <Presid...@IsGreat.com> wrote in message
news:0pgdt0h81gmu1s2j4...@4ax.com...
Dore
news:i5het0h0am8ggdq8q...@4ax.com...
> "Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
> human
> concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
> cannot
> begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
> religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
> never has
> been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
> simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
> madness."
> [Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
Atheism is living in a very small two dimensional reality, small minded, in
darkness, ignorance and evil. It's reality is insignificant, carnal, limited
and worthless, for it can only conceive of what it shallowly grasps with
it's physical senses. It ignores all of the intangible things of life and
cannot perceive them as they are, but dismisses them, and lies to itself
that it doesn't exist. It cannot explain life, dreams, visions, thought,
imagination, ghosts, spirit, supernatural events, near death experiences, or
even how emotions are evoked. In fact, Atheism knows so little that it
provides no insight to anything beyond it's insignificant physical existence
and even that is small and limited.
--
Dore
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:i5het0h0am8ggdq8q...@4ax.com...
Dore
news:m51ja2-...@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
> Well damn Bore, you'd best get that message out to your bible thumping
> buddies.
>
> Especially those useless con artist on the boob tube. And while you are
> at it, you may want to take down your requests for "tax free donations" on
> your web site. After all, that's one of the draws for your rich, bible
> thumping, child molesting, lying, cheating, "can't pull a splinter, much
> less heal cancer", preacher friends.
HYPOCRITES, LIARS, FRAUDS and EVIL DOERS who USE the name of Christ for
personal gain and material pleasures are NOT my friends, nor are they any
friends of God, but are just as evil as the rest of you sinners and wicked.
PS. I have NO tax free donations ability on my website. In fact, on my
website, I condemn capitalism and money.
cont
>
> --
> There are none more ignorant and useless,
> than they that seek answers on their knees,
> with their eyes closed.
There are none more ignorant and useless than those that seek answers
standing up, with their eyes wide open that don't have a leg to stand on,
and are blind, for they NEVER find any.
--
Dore
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:m51ja2-...@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
Dore
> Then, logically, even those with just a little money are a little
> evil. Thank you for the admission of guilt, Dore.
No, those of us who DESPISE money are not held accountable, for the
ignorance and stupidity of evil wicked people like you, who love, bow,
submit and willingly enslave themselves to money and the capitalistic system
without complaint, forcing the rest of us to be enslaved by your wickedness.
--
Dore
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:62het0hajrrnuq5km...@4ax.com...
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
> "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net> wrote in message
> news:m51ja2-...@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
>
>
>
>>Well damn Bore, you'd best get that message out to your bible thumping
>>buddies.
>>
>>Especially those useless con artist on the boob tube. And while you are
>>at it, you may want to take down your requests for "tax free donations" on
>>your web site. After all, that's one of the draws for your rich, bible
>>thumping, child molesting, lying, cheating, "can't pull a splinter, much
>>less heal cancer", preacher friends.
>
>
> HYPOCRITES, LIARS, FRAUDS and EVIL DOERS who USE the name of Christ for
> personal gain and material pleasures are NOT my friends, nor are they any
> friends of God, but are just as evil as the rest of you sinners and wicked.
>
> PS. I have NO tax free donations ability on my website. In fact, on my
> website, I condemn capitalism and money.
>
> cont
>
No different the Falwell, Robertson, Kennedy, or any other media bible
thumper.
Except for one major difference, none of them claim to be the second
cuming. That is reserved for you Bore. You claim it, and when taken to
task for it, run away screaming like a four year old in a sand box, that
does not get her way.
I pity you.
>
>>--
>>There are none more ignorant and useless,
>>than they that seek answers on their knees,
>>with their eyes closed.
>
>
>
> There are none more ignorant and useless than those that seek answers
> standing up, with their eyes wide open that don't have a leg to stand on,
> and are blind, for they NEVER find any.
>
Did the voices in your head tell you to say that? Or have you failed to
take your meds again?
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:i5het0h0am8ggdq8q...@4ax.com...
>> [Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
>Atheism is living in a very small two dimensional reality
Reduced to responding to random sig lines, are we?
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:62het0hajrrnuq5km...@4ax.com...
>> Then, logically, even those with just a little money are a little
>> evil. Thank you for the admission of guilt, Dore.
>No, those of us who DESPISE money are not held accountable
Why? Because you say so? Sane people don't order their lives
according to the beliefs of the insane.
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>The love of money is the ROOT of ALL EVIL, therefore ALL wealthy are the most evil on the earth.
1) You're assuming that all wealthy love money.
2) "Wealthy" is relative. You own a computer (or, at least, access to
one) so, compared to the homeless, you're wealthy. So you love money
and are one of the most evil - by your own logic.
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>Just as YOU submit to the cult of the power of your god, money and the
>system of the beast, evil, sin and SATAN.
Satan? Oh, you mean the evil that your god created.
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>Of course money is evil. It is merely a worthless piece of paper, a metal
>disc, or a digit in a computer that men have faith in, and places a price on
>the priceless, denying men the sustenances of life. There is NOTHING good
>about money.
So why doesn't your god provide everything we need without the need
for money? In fact, why did he create the concept of money at all?
(Since all things are his will, and he created everything, the blame,
if there is any, is his.)
>Actually, I have. In 1990, I forsook my job, all money, all of my
>possessions, homes and all to be obedient to the Word of God and lived on
>the street for 3 years. But because mankind was SO EVIL, it became
>unbearable and so I returned to the work force to sustain myself, to find
>peace away from the wicked people who covered the earth. I still HATE money
>and it's enslavement, and the ONLY reason that I am forced to seek it is
>because evil men and this evil beast's system of capitalism FORCE me to,
>since there are NO true Christians who are willing to give, do and work as
>well as receive, FREELY, providing for each other's needs and sustenance,
>and live the way God had intended.
Your god intended for others to support you?
Dore, you can always move to the Amazon and live in the jungle, away
from all other people, living off the land. That you CHOOSE to not do
so is merely your choice.
>> Even by using a computer and internet link you are using the money
>> that someone has. Poor or wealthy, it all boils down to the same
>> thing - your relationship to God, Christ, and to your fellow man.
>> The only freedom tyranny offers is the freedom to submit.
>Yes, because this evil system's beast of capitalism forces us all to.
You're *forced* to post to usenet?
>The wealthy, just like yourself, are UNWILLING to give up anything, unwilling to
>deny yourself anything, unwilling to sacrifice anything for the sake of the
>kingdom of God. So, you are just as evil, as the wealthy and your
>relationship with God is based on YOU and YOUR desires first, living in
>worldliness and darkness and then making excuses for it.
Typical ChristStain, unwilling to accept responsibility for her own
actions.
Victoria Hirt
>"Victoria Hirt" <n...@spam.please> wrote in message
>news:4jddt0thg2bcog1uo...@4ax.com...
>
>> Remember Job? He was stripped of everything he had, but because he
>> was faithful to God, God restored his lands, his wealth, etc. This is
>> only one of many stories in the Bible where wealth used correctly
>> isn't evil.
>Job didn't have MONEY, he had possessions, land, animals, etc.
He was a very wealthy man.
>> Have you divested yourself of all worldly good and are you living on
>> the street living day by day totally trusting in God (lilies of the
>> field) to take care of you? If not, you are in the world just like
>> the rest of us.
>
>Actually, I have. In 1990, I forsook my job, all money, all of my
>possessions, homes and all to be obedient to the Word of God and lived on
>the street for 3 years. But because mankind was SO EVIL, it became
>unbearable and so I returned to the work force to sustain myself, to find
>peace away from the wicked people who covered the earth.
Then you submitted to the "evil" and now are trying to blame others
for your weakness and failure.
>I still HATE money
>and it's enslavement, and the ONLY reason that I am forced to seek it is
>because evil men and this evil beast's system of capitalism FORCE me to,
Go to another country. The holy men of India do not make money or
work. They beg for food. You can certainly live on the streets.
>since there are NO true Christians who are willing to give, do and work as
>well as receive, FREELY, providing for each other's needs and sustenance,
>and live the way God had intended.
Let me get this straight. You think you are the only true Christian
in the world, right?
>The difference between you and I is that
>I KNOW that money is evil and despise it, where you defend it's use, love
>and serve it willingly without complaint.
No, that is not the difference. I know that money in and of itself is
not evil and I also know that is not what the Bible says. It says the
LOVE of money is evil.
>> Even by using a computer and internet link you are using the money
>> that someone has. Poor or wealthy, it all boils down to the same
>> thing - your relationship to God, Christ, and to your fellow man.
>> The only freedom tyranny offers is the freedom to submit.
>
>Yes, because this evil system's beast of capitalism forces us all to.
No one is forcing you to use a computer. If they are then give me
your address and I will call the police immediately so you can be
free not to use a computer.
>The wealthy, just like yourself,
I am not wealthy nor have I ever stated that I was. Those are merely
your misguided assumptions.
>are UNWILLING to give up anything, unwilling to
>deny yourself anything, unwilling to sacrifice anything for the sake of the
>kingdom of God.
Now wait a minute1 You are unwilling to suffer without the comforts
of this world that money buys and have turned your back on the very
things YOU believe and are accusing me, someone you do not know of
being unwilling to sacrifice. Sounds like you are trying to justify
YOUR weakness by accusing others of doing what you yourself do.
>So, you are just as evil, as the wealthy and your
>relationship with God is based on YOU and YOUR desires first, living in
>worldliness and darkness and then making excuses for it.
Looks like the pot calling the kettle black. Clean up your own life
and YOUR dependency on money before you accuse strangers of anything.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:11:20 GMT, "Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>>since there are NO true Christians who are willing to give, do and work as
>>well as receive, FREELY, providing for each other's needs and sustenance,
>>and live the way God had intended.
>Let me get this straight. You think you are the only true Christian
>in the world, right?
Dore *knows* that she is both the Christian god AND the Risen Christ.
She's made the claims on usenet.
Thom
all of that is really quite true. One of my favorites is when
republicans think they just got wealthier because some crooked real
estate agent tells them there house is worth $50,000 more than last
year and why don't they let them sell it for them?
THOM
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>One of my favorites is when
>republicans think they just got wealthier because some crooked real
>estate agent tells them there house is worth $50,000 more than last
>year and why don't they let them sell it for them?
Many people, not just republicans, don't know the difference between
wealth and money.
--
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
cosmi...@yahoo.com
morals than the majority of people I personally know that are
'Christian'. I believe that a bad person is a bad person regardless
if they are atheist or christian. Many bad people use religion to
cover for guilt they feel about something, and those same people are
the most zealous about converting people to be 'saved'.
I think that Bush truly thinks that God is on his side, and that is why
he doesn't fear God. His actions may be of one who doesn't fear God,
but many people have their own notions of what God 'wants'.
Christianity is filled with tons of corruption. This is not to
undermine people's beliefs, but to point out how evil people WILL take
advantage of beliefs if they can. It's not the belief in God that is
corrupt, but the belief that somehow the church/temple/mosque knows the
will of God. This is where the hypocracy lies... A God of mankind
would find no pleasure in the killing of his creations, yet all
religions seem to suffer from the 'We are right, you are wrong'
syndrome.
Bush might be 'Christian', but his actions are not 'Christian'. This
is where the importance lies. I measure people by their actions, not
their words. I see many people that claim they are Christian; live
immoral lives, yet they claim I'm going to Hell because I don't pray to
Jesus. It's pure fiction to think this way. If there IS a God, I
believe that it's logical to assume that he would also meter people by
their actions. I think it would be ridculous to send people to Hell
just because they happen to lead good lives, but don't pray to Jesus.
I personally do not believe in God, because if he did exsist he
would've stopped this killing for him long ago. If for some reason
he's letting humans murder each other because of 'freewill', he's a
very cruel deity indeed.
Religion and Government should never mix. The majority of our
problems stem from this.
-cos
Pastor Dave
Everest, cosmi...@yahoo.com pontificated:
>Atheism doesn't mean 'not-moral'. I am an atheist, and I have stronger
>morals than the majority of people I personally know that are
>'Christian'.
Many atheists claim that and yet, still end up
attacking Christians here.
>I personally do not believe in God, because if he did exsist he
>would've stopped this killing for him long ago. If for some reason
>he's letting humans murder each other because of 'freewill', he's a
>very cruel deity indeed.
So then you believe that God should make robots out of
man? Of course, then, if you could, you would point at
God and tell Him that if He loved us, He would let us
run our own lives and that conformity by force is not a
sign of love. So please, no offense, but don't give me
your spiel about what a loving God would do. The fact
is, you're blaming God, because man keeps on sinning.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
cosmi...@yahoo.com
stronger
>>morals than the majority of people I personally know that are
>>'Christian'.
>Many atheists claim that and yet, still end up
>attacking Christians here.
What does this have to do with morals? I attack Christian views
because many people claim they are Christian, yet they fail to follow
Christ's teachings. On top of that, they also live immoral lives, then
they believe they can pray and their slate is clean... Yet, because I
don't pray, my slate is never clean and I am going to Hell regardless
of how a good person I am.
>>I personally do not believe in God, because if he did exsist he
>>would've stopped this killing for him long ago. If for some reason
>>he's letting humans murder each other because of 'freewill', he's a
>>very cruel deity indeed.
>So then you believe that God should make robots out of
>man? Of course, then, if you could, you would point at
>God and tell Him that if He loved us, He would let us
>run our own lives and that conformity by force is not a
>sign of love. So please, no offense, but don't give me
>your spiel about what a loving God would do. The fact
>is, you're blaming God, because man keeps on sinning.
Look, the whole argument about freewill is a bad one. I am not talking
about robots, I'm talking about human beings that don't have the desire
to sin. If God is truly all powerful, why can he not create a human
that has NO desire to sin? And if for some reason he cannot create
such a thing, how is he all powerful? These are the constant
contradictions that crop up, suggesting that man created god in their
image... Not the other way around.
-cos
Pastor Dave
Everest, cosmi...@yahoo.com pontificated:
>>>Atheism doesn't mean 'not-moral'. I am an atheist, and I have
>stronger
>>>morals than the majority of people I personally know that are
>>>'Christian'.
>
>>Many atheists claim that and yet, still end up
>>attacking Christians here.
>
>What does this have to do with morals?
Plenty. Is it moral to just start launching verbal
attacks on Christians? The typical atheist in these
groups hates Christians.
>I attack Christian views
>because many people claim they are Christian, yet they fail to follow
>Christ's teachings.
And when an atheist says that, it typically means their
version of what Christ taught.
>On top of that, they also live immoral lives, then
>they believe they can pray and their slate is clean...
And yet the atheist argues that if God were loving, He
would forgive. Then when it says that He will, the
atheist complains that it means that He isn't truly
God.
If you are discussing the continuing of living immoral
lives, no one said to continue living immoral lives.
That's license, not liberty.
You also assume that the atheist does not live an
immoral life.
>Yet, because I
>don't pray, my slate is never clean and I am going to Hell regardless
>of how a good person I am.
You are not a good person. No one is. This is a claim
that many make, yet they are full of sin.
>>>I personally do not believe in God, because if he did exsist he
>>>would've stopped this killing for him long ago. If for some reason
>>>he's letting humans murder each other because of 'freewill', he's a
>>>very cruel deity indeed.
>
>>So then you believe that God should make robots out of
>>man? Of course, then, if you could, you would point at
>>God and tell Him that if He loved us, He would let us
>>run our own lives and that conformity by force is not a
>>sign of love. So please, no offense, but don't give me
>>your spiel about what a loving God would do. The fact
>>is, you're blaming God, because man keeps on sinning.
>
>Look, the whole argument about freewill is a bad one. I am not talking
>about robots, I'm talking about human beings that don't have the desire
>to sin. If God is truly all powerful, why can he not create a human
>that has NO desire to sin? And if for some reason he cannot create
>such a thing, how is he all powerful? These are the constant
>contradictions that crop up, suggesting that man created god in their
>image... Not the other way around.
You view it as a contradiction. God created man good.
Man made his choice. To not have an option, is to be a
robot. If man had created God in man's image, then God
would not be so holy, but rather, more like man.
Al Klein
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> said in alt.atheism:
>On 2 Jan 2005 19:25:51 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
>Everest, cosmi...@yahoo.com pontificated:
>>Atheism doesn't mean 'not-moral'. I am an atheist, and I have stronger
>>morals than the majority of people I personally know that are
>>'Christian'.
>Many atheists claim that and yet, still end up
>attacking Christians here.
That has nothing to do with morals.
>>I personally do not believe in God, because if he did exsist he
>>would've stopped this killing for him long ago. If for some reason
>>he's letting humans murder each other because of 'freewill', he's a
>>very cruel deity indeed.
>So then you believe that God should make robots out of
>man?
Can you breathe under water like a fish? Can you fly like a bird?
We're already limited in what we can do.
Al Klein
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> said in alt.atheism:
>On 3 Jan 2005 07:09:52 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
>Everest, cosmi...@yahoo.com pontificated:
>>>>Atheism doesn't mean 'not-moral'. I am an atheist, and I have stronger
>>>>morals than the majority of people I personally know that are
>>>>'Christian'.
>>>Many atheists claim that and yet, still end up
>>>attacking Christians here.
>>What does this have to do with morals?
>Plenty. Is it moral to just start launching verbal
>attacks on Christians?
"Morality" is "a system of values". Attacking Christians qualifies.
>The typical atheist in these groups hates Christians.
Not allowing you to force your religion on us isn't hating you.
>>I attack Christian views
>>because many people claim they are Christian, yet they fail to follow
>>Christ's teachings.
>And when an atheist says that, it typically means their
>version of what Christ taught.
And when a Christian says "Christ's teachings", it typically means
their version of what Christ taught.
>If you are discussing the continuing of living immoral
>lives, no one said to continue living immoral lives.
>That's license, not liberty.
Liberty is freedom. Liberty to do only certain things is slavery.
>You also assume that the atheist does not live an
>immoral life.
Some do, some don't.
>>Yet, because I
>>don't pray, my slate is never clean and I am going to Hell regardless
>>of how a good person I am.
>You are not a good person. No one is. This is a claim
>that many make, yet they are full of sin.
This is a claim that many Christians make, yet it is without merit.
>You view it as a contradiction. God created man good.
>Man made his choice.
Free will means no punishment regardless of what choice you make.
>To not have an option, is to be a
>robot. If man had created God in man's image, then God
>would not be so holy, but rather, more like man.
Which the Christian god is.
stoney
The "Lord God" created evil, and it was good.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
stoney
Dore's an unmedicated nutcase like "Jesus" was.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:11:01 -0500, Al Klein
><CellP...@optonline.com> wrote:
>>Dore *knows* that she is both the Christian god AND the Risen Christ.
>>She's made the claims on usenet.
>Dore's an unmedicated nutcase like "Jesus" was.
Nah. Dore exists.
Nick
Fine then. Now, demonstrate that your proposed god actually exists, and then
we atheists shall care. Until that happens, there is nothing for us to
discuss.
*********************************************
"Don't look now, I'm just a friendly reminder!" Homsar from the HR website
cosmi...@yahoo.com
>attacks on Christians? The typical atheist in these
>groups hates Christians.
If an atheist launches a verbal attack, that is his/her choice. It's
not as if I haven't seen 'Christians' launching attacks as well. In
either case, I disagree with the statement:
" The typical atheist in these groups hates Christians."
Hate is a strong word, and just because some asserts their opinion,
doesn't mean they are filled with hatred.
>And when an atheist says that, it typically means their
>version of what Christ taught.
Well, no. What Christ taught, and what Christians do are usually quite
different. For example, I fail to see any passages in the Bible that
describe the mighty edifices that are common in Christianity. Yet,
these are the place that supposed 'Christians' gather in order to
worship. I equate this as, writing a book about a sentence that
someone said.
>And yet the atheist argues that if God were loving, He
>would forgive. Then when it says that He will, the
>atheist complains that it means that He isn't truly
>God.
I don't complain about any of these points. Everything suggests that
God is either quite cruel, or not really there.
>You also assume that the atheist does not live an
>immoral life.
I am not assuming anything. I was making an example, mostly using
myself as the example. I live a life that is quite 'pure' if you can
call it that. I don't smoke, drink, womanize, and help people in
need... I even volunteered along with a church group, for the sole
purpose of helping the needy (never discussing religion of course).
Yet, by the Christian standards I am going to Hell, because I have
never professed my love for Jesus.
>You are not a good person. No one is. This is a claim
>that many make, yet they are full of sin.
Who are you to judge me?! I certainly am a good person, and I have no
doubt about that. I know what I've done in my life, and I have no
guilt.
>You view it as a contradiction. God created man good.
>Man made his choice. To not have an option, is to be a
>robot. If man had created God in man's image, then God
>would not be so holy, but rather, more like man.
Yet, God would see it fit to throw someone into Hell because they are
'flawed' because of an option that HE provided to man. Makes little
sense.
God is created in man's image. People even refer to him and paint him
looking like a MAN. He is talked about as if he were a person quite a
bit, and he has anger and happiness in hte Bible just like a man.
-cos
FreedomAlways
<CellP...@optonline.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 10:05:35 -0800, stoney <sto...@the.net> said in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:11:01 -0500, Al Klein
>><CellP...@optonline.com> wrote:
>
>>>Dore *knows* that she is both the Christian god AND the Risen Christ.
>>>She's made the claims on usenet.
>
>>Dore's an unmedicated nutcase like "Jesus" was.
>
>Nah. Dore exists.
Most historians will tell you that the person "Jesus" existed as well.
He may not have done any of the things he is credited with, but he
probably did exist.
Christopher A. Lee
<Presid...@IsGreat.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:12:40 -0500, Al Klein
><CellP...@optonline.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 10:05:35 -0800, stoney <sto...@the.net> said in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:11:01 -0500, Al Klein
>>><CellP...@optonline.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Dore *knows* that she is both the Christian god AND the Risen Christ.
>>>>She's made the claims on usenet.
>>
>>>Dore's an unmedicated nutcase like "Jesus" was.
>>
>>Nah. Dore exists.
>
>Most historians will tell you that the person "Jesus" existed as well.
Some will, in spite of the complete lack of evidence.
>He may not have done any of the things he is credited with, but he
>probably did exist.
And the evidence for this, is?
FreedomAlways
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>Most historians will tell you that the person "Jesus" existed as well.
>
>Some will, in spite of the complete lack of evidence.
Yes, I should have said "some". Physical evidence is, as far as I
know, lacking. However, the number of times that a person named Jesus
was named in historical documents makes his existence at least
possible.
>
>>He may not have done any of the things he is credited with, but he
>>probably did exist.
>
>And the evidence for this, is?
As above.
Christopher A. Lee
<Presid...@IsGreat.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:00:35 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>Most historians will tell you that the person "Jesus" existed as well.
>>
>>Some will, in spite of the complete lack of evidence.
>
>Yes, I should have said "some". Physical evidence is, as far as I
>know, lacking. However, the number of times that a person named Jesus
>was named in historical documents makes his existence at least
>possible.
Rationalisation.
We're talking about one particular one.
Not just anybody with that name.
>>>He may not have done any of the things he is credited with, but he
>>>probably did exist.
>>
>>And the evidence for this, is?
>
>As above.
Ditto.
Al Klein
>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:12:40 -0500, Al Klein
><CellP...@optonline.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 10:05:35 -0800, stoney <sto...@the.net> said in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:11:01 -0500, Al Klein
>>><CellP...@optonline.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Dore *knows* that she is both the Christian god AND the Risen Christ.
>>>>She's made the claims on usenet.
>>
>>>Dore's an unmedicated nutcase like "Jesus" was.
>>
>>Nah. Dore exists.
>
>Most historians will tell you that the person "Jesus" existed as well.
Tell us? Yes. Present contemporary mention of him? No.
Al Klein
<Presid...@IsGreat.com> said in alt.atheism:
>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:00:35 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>Most historians will tell you that the person "Jesus" existed as well.
>>Some will, in spite of the complete lack of evidence.
>Yes, I should have said "some". Physical evidence is, as far as I
>know, lacking.
So is ANY contemporary extra-biblical mention about someone going
around performing miracles.
> However, the number of times that a person named Jesus
>was named in historical documents makes his existence at least
>possible.
He was named in contemporary historical documents exactly ZERO times.
Think not? Post the contemporary historical documents "mentioning"
him. (Note: "contemporary" means "written within his lifetime".)
navi-gater
news:kppit0hkpae9cep1f...@4ax.com:
>
> You view it as a contradiction. God created man good.
> Man made his choice. To not have an option, is to be a
> robot. If man had created God in man's image, then God
> would not be so holy, but rather, more like man.
Exactly what are you a "pastor" of? Your ignorance of your own book is
really phenomenal. Even my basic sunday school teachings left me with
more information than you have.
No doubt you wish me to provide evidence of this claim. OK.
> You view it as a contradiction. God created man good.
In fact "god" created man ignorant of good + evil (perhaps ignorance is
bliss in your tribe, but I prefer knowledge). Adam and Eve ran around
naked in ignorance of any problem. Eve ate the fruit as did Adam and
they learned than nakedness was "evil" and sought to hide themselves.
So "god" was quite happy with their nakedness even though knowledge told
them it was "evil" and shameful - they were hardly good, and what does
it say about god to let them run around that way.
Of course, there's nothing at all wrong with nakedness - clothing are a
means of protection and nothing more. Only the weak-minded need to make
nakedness a sin.
> Man made his choice.
Indeed. In fact Adam was told he'd die if ate that fruit, but he didn't.
Error on "god's" part or was he just letting Adam live out of pity?
Neither in fact. In the genesis accounts, "god" claims that Man recieved
knowledge which made him god-like. So there you go, "god" has no
dominion over man, in fact man is as powerful as god.
Makes sense, mankind regularly performs "miracles" much more powerful
than those of the bible...
> If man had created God in man's image, then God
> would not be so holy, but rather, more like man.
In reading the bible, I see a rather petty, weak and immoral god by my
standards.
If I'd written the bible I'd have a much more intelligent god. The fact
the bible god is in fact lacking on capability points out to me that it
is indeed an invention and by very simple souls at that.
If you think the god of the bible is in some way impressive, that says
more about you than the god...
gater.
Thom
wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 11:27:33 GMT, toml...@melbpc.org.au (Thom) said
>in alt.atheism:
>
>>One of my favorites is when
>>republicans think they just got wealthier because some crooked real
>>estate agent tells them there house is worth $50,000 more than last
>>year and why don't they let them sell it for them?
>
>Many people, not just republicans, don't know the difference between
>wealth and money.
I do agree with that.
THOM
Al Klein
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> said in alt.atheism:
>On 3 Jan 2005 11:02:33 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
>Everest, cosmi...@yahoo.com pontificated:
>>>Plenty. Is it moral to just start launching verbal
>>>attacks on Christians? The typical atheist in these
>>>groups hates Christians.
>>If an atheist launches a verbal attack, that is his/her choice.
>And it is immoral
Morality is in the eye of the beholder, and it's not immoral in our
eyes.
>and wrong.
"Wrong" is a value judgment - you keep yours and we'll keep ours.
>According to you. But once again, you assume that if
>there's a God and something happens, that God is to
>blame.
Since he's (according to Christianity) the omniscient creator, he
knew, before he created the universe, what would happen. So it's his
responsibility. He *could* have created a universe in which suffering
was impossible.
>You have sinned
Those who don't believe in your god can't sin.
> and I don't believe that you don't sin.
Your opinion of how logic works is irrelevant.
>That doesn't make you a good person.
Neither does doing good things because you want to get to heaven. Or
are afraid of ending up in hell.
>I haven't judged you. I repeated God's judgment
A god that doesn't exist. IOW, your judgment.
FreedomAlways
<CellP...@optonline.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:29:10 -0500, FreedomAlways
><Presid...@IsGreat.com> said in alt.atheism:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:00:35 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
>><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Most historians will tell you that the person "Jesus" existed as well.
>
>>>Some will, in spite of the complete lack of evidence.
>
>>Yes, I should have said "some". Physical evidence is, as far as I
>>know, lacking.
>
>So is ANY contemporary extra-biblical mention about someone going
>around performing miracles.
None that I know of.
Do you think that there is no chance, (absolute), that a person was
alive between the years 1-30 that could be the Jesus that was the same
person that is referred to in all of the biblical and non-biblical
documents by John, Caesar, etc.?
I have trouble with an absolute in this case. I've found though the
years that even some of the outlandish wifes tales have some basis in
real life, however slim.
>
>> However, the number of times that a person named Jesus
>>was named in historical documents makes his existence at least
>>possible.
>
>He was named in contemporary historical documents exactly ZERO times.
That have been authenticated and/or discovered. Sometimes, a discovery
is made in the archeological realm that is dated millions of years in
the past. Why can this not be a possibility with the "Jesus" thing? As
an agnostic, I cannot rule out this possibility, so I'm left with the
possibility that this guy may have actually existed, maybe.
Tomorrow, we may have a find that tells us more, (or less), than we
had hoped.
>Think not? Post the contemporary historical documents "mentioning"
>him. (Note: "contemporary" means "written within his lifetime".)
Thanks for the reminder of things past learned. I'll do the same for
you when necessary.
The non-contemporary documents that do mention the Biblical Jesus, are
many. Almost all of it is to me, religious pap, but I do have to try
to separate the wheat from the chaff and notice any possible truths.
Better people than you and I have examined this matter for centuries.
I will note your opinion, and perhaps you will note mine.
I wish you a long and happy life.
Al Klein
<Presid...@IsGreat.com> said in alt.atheism:
>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:54:49 -0500, Al Klein
><CellP...@optonline.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:29:10 -0500, FreedomAlways
>><Presid...@IsGreat.com> said in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:00:35 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
>>><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Most historians will tell you that the person "Jesus" existed as well.
>>
>>>>Some will, in spite of the complete lack of evidence.
>>
>>>Yes, I should have said "some". Physical evidence is, as far as I
>>>know, lacking.
>>
>>So is ANY contemporary extra-biblical mention about someone going
>>around performing miracles.
>
>None that I know of.
>Do you think that there is no chance, (absolute), that a person was
>alive between the years 1-30 that could be the Jesus that was the same
>person that is referred to in all of the biblical and non-biblical
>documents by John, Caesar, etc.?
Someone performing miracles? Someone risen from the dead after 3
days. No chance.
>I have trouble with an absolute in this case.
But no trouble with rotten meat "resurrecting" into a person?
> I've found though the
>years that even some of the outlandish wifes tales have some basis in
>real life, however slim.
None of which are extraordinary.
>>> However, the number of times that a person named Jesus
>>>was named in historical documents makes his existence at least
>>>possible.
>>He was named in contemporary historical documents exactly ZERO times.
>That have been authenticated and/or discovered. Sometimes, a discovery
>is made in the archeological realm that is dated millions of years in
>the past. Why can this not be a possibility with the "Jesus" thing?
Because it's not claimed that he lived millions of years ago.
> As an agnostic
Agnostic theist or agnostic atheist?
>>Think not? Post the contemporary historical documents "mentioning"
>>him. (Note: "contemporary" means "written within his lifetime".)
>
>Thanks for the reminder of things past learned. I'll do the same for
>you when necessary.
>
>The non-contemporary documents that do mention the Biblical Jesus
are hearsay.
Robert Sveinson
Is he dead?
Dore
news:6kcgt0lpeblq33abp...@4ax.com...
> Satan? Oh, you mean the evil that your god created.
Yea, the same one that you cower, bow and submit to freely.
--
Dore
"Al Klein" <CellP...@optonline.com> wrote in message
news:6kcgt0lpeblq33abp...@4ax.com...
Dore
> So why doesn't your god provide everything we need without the need
> for money? In fact, why did he create the concept of money at all?
> (Since all things are his will, and he created everything, the blame,
> if there is any, is his.)
He did, everything that exists, God provided and gave FREELY. It was MAN who
decided to make it his own, and then place a price on it and charge others
money for it. God didn't create the concept of money, man did. Not all
things are HIS will, where did you get that notion? MAN CHOOSING EVIL, is
NOT God's will. God created everything, but man took what God has created
and corrupted it, stole it, selfishly claimed it as his own, and turned what
was good into evil.
cont
> Your god intended for others to support you?
God created all things for man to SHARE freely and equally, giving and
receiving FREELY, not using it to abuse, oppress, steal and enslave others
with.
cont
>
> Dore, you can always move to the Amazon and live in the jungle, away
> from all other people, living off the land. That you CHOOSE to not do
> so is merely your choice.
No, I'll wait until God has decided to destroy all of the wicked, evil doers
and sinners from off the face of the earth, as He promised, so that, I and
the righteous can inherit the earth and live the way God intended from the
beginning. >
cont
> You're *forced* to post to usenet?
No, I am forced to PAY for it.
cont
> Typical ChristStain, unwilling to accept responsibility for her own
> actions.
The EVIL actions and corrupt, selfish, prideful, greedy and oppressive ways
that men choose to do in the world are NOT MY responsibility. However, the
EVIL that YOU choose is YOUR responsibility and you will receive perfect
justification for what you righteously deserve in punishment. I merely have
to endure until you and all wicked evil doers are destroyed, then it will be
my turn.
--
Dore
"Al Klein" <CellP...@optonline.com> wrote in message
news:ulcgt0h6ri9gqi5qi...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:11:20 GMT, "Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net>
> said in alt.atheism:
>
>>Of course money is evil. It is merely a worthless piece of paper, a metal
>>disc, or a digit in a computer that men have faith in, and places a price
>>on
>>the priceless, denying men the sustenances of life. There is NOTHING good
>>about money.
>
> So why doesn't your god provide everything we need without the need
> for money? In fact, why did he create the concept of money at all?
> (Since all things are his will, and he created everything, the blame,
> if there is any, is his.)
>
>>Actually, I have. In 1990, I forsook my job, all money, all of my
>>possessions, homes and all to be obedient to the Word of God and lived on
>>the street for 3 years. But because mankind was SO EVIL, it became
>>unbearable and so I returned to the work force to sustain myself, to find
>>peace away from the wicked people who covered the earth. I still HATE
>>money
>>and it's enslavement, and the ONLY reason that I am forced to seek it is
>>because evil men and this evil beast's system of capitalism FORCE me to,
>>since there are NO true Christians who are willing to give, do and work as
>>well as receive, FREELY, providing for each other's needs and sustenance,
>>and live the way God had intended.
>
> Your god intended for others to support you?
>
> Dore, you can always move to the Amazon and live in the jungle, away
> from all other people, living off the land. That you CHOOSE to not do
> so is merely your choice.
>
>>> Even by using a computer and internet link you are using the money
>>> that someone has. Poor or wealthy, it all boils down to the same
>>> thing - your relationship to God, Christ, and to your fellow man.
>>> The only freedom tyranny offers is the freedom to submit.
>
>>Yes, because this evil system's beast of capitalism forces us all to.
>
> You're *forced* to post to usenet?
>
>>The wealthy, just like yourself, are UNWILLING to give up anything,
>>unwilling to
>>deny yourself anything, unwilling to sacrifice anything for the sake of
>>the
>>kingdom of God. So, you are just as evil, as the wealthy and your
>>relationship with God is based on YOU and YOUR desires first, living in
>>worldliness and darkness and then making excuses for it.
>
> Typical ChristStain, unwilling to accept responsibility for her own
> actions.
Dore
news:1jsft0h61vuqhvqtm...@4ax.com...
> He was a very wealthy man.
Like I said, NOT with MONEY.
cont
> Then you submitted to the "evil" and now are trying to blame others
> for your weakness and failure.
>
No, I could NO longer endure the evil and NOW I am enslaved, oppressed,
neglected, abused and tormented by the evil that YOU SUPPORT and I DESPISE.
It was NOT MY failure that the whole world has CHOSEN evil and I have to
suffer for it, it is YOURS and THEIRS.
cont
> Go to another country. The holy men of India do not make money or
> work. They beg for food. You can certainly live on the streets.
>
There is NO difference in any other country. The WHOLE world is ruled by the
BEAST, the New World Order. Why should I suffer more than what I already
have because YOU and your fellow countrymen SERVE SATAN and the BEAST? I
will wait and endure until the destruction of the wicked and sinners, that
God has promised, and then I and the righteous will inherit the earth,
order, establish and increase the government of God upon the earth and
finally live as God intended from the beginning. Unfortunately, you will NOT
be here to see it, you will be destroyed along with the rest of the beast's
servants, sinners, wicked, hypocrites and evil doers.
cont
> Let me get this straight. You think you are the only true Christian
> in the world, right?
As a matter of fact, at this time, there are very few of us. However, being
Jesus Christ, the prophecies revealed that I would be alone and continue to
fight against, you and the rest of mine and God's enemies. .
Isa 63:3-10
3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with
me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and
their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my
raiment.
4 For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is
come.
5 And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was
none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my
fury, it upheld me.
6 And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my
fury, and I will bring down their strength to the earth.
7 I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, and the praises of the
LORD, according to all that the LORD hath bestowed on us, and the great
goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them
according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his
lovingkindnesses.
8 For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he
was their Saviour.
9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence
saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them,
and carried them all the days of old.
10 But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to
be their enemy, and he fought against them.
KJV
cont
>>The difference between you and I is that
>>I KNOW that money is evil and despise it, where you defend it's use, love
>>and serve it willingly without complaint.
>
> No, that is not the difference. I know that money in and of itself is
> not evil and I also know that is not what the Bible says. It says the
> LOVE of money is evil.
>
Money is EVIL, and you don't need the Bible to tell you that, it is common
sense, if you had the Holy Spirit of truth or any Godliness in you, you
would also know that. Money causes the love of it. If there was NO money,
there would be NO love for it. If man lived as God had intended, giving,
working, sharing and providing for each other freely, without price or cost,
there would be NO evil in the world.
cont
> No one is forcing you to use a computer. If they are then give me
> your address and I will call the police immediately so you can be
> free not to use a computer.
No, but they are forcing me to PAY for it, just as they are FORCING YOU TO.
cont
>>The wealthy, just like yourself,
>
> I am not wealthy nor have I ever stated that I was. Those are merely
> your misguided assumptions.
I didn't say you were wealthy, I said you were LIKE the wealthy, with the
same mindset.
cont
> Now wait a minute1 You are unwilling to suffer without the comforts
> of this world that money buys and have turned your back on the very
> things YOU believe and are accusing me, someone you do not know of
> being unwilling to sacrifice. Sounds like you are trying to justify
> YOUR weakness by accusing others of doing what you yourself do.
>
No, I was willing to OBEY GOD, something that you are UNWILLING to do. What
have you denied yourself, what have YOU forsaken for the sake of the kingdom
to be a disciple of Christ? Obviously nothing if you are DEFENDING your lack
of sacrifice and attacking me for being OBEDIENT to God and suffering for
it. Instead of YOU being obedient to God and forsaking ALL things of the
earth to enter into the kingdom of God, you bow, cower, submit and make
excuses for your servitude and love for money. It is NOT MY fault that men
are evil and force this evil capitalistic system of the beast on the earth
and treat those who are obedient to God, who forsake all, and have nothing,
like garbage, and abuse them as worthless trash because they don't have
money. How EVIL of you to persecute me for obeying God and suffering at the
hands of evil men, and then having the audacity to accuse me of failure,
when it is you, and the like minded money lovers, who cause all of the evil
and suffering on the earth and DO NOTHING to stop it. At least, I don't make
excuses for what I have done, but admit freely that I was forced back into
slavery of this evil system, so at least I can try to do something about it,
since living on the streets accomplished nothing, because the whole world
LOVES, SERVES, COWERS and SUBMITS to money and this evil capitalistic
system, and IGNORES and PUNISHES those who HATE it and try to survive
without it. YOU should be ON MY SIDE, instead of SATAN'S defending money and
LOVING and SERVING it without complaint. I certainly hope you don't consider
yourself a Christian, for if you do, it is your kind that profane the name
of Christ with your HYPOCRISY.
Matt 16:24-26
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let
him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose
his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose
his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
KJV
Luke 14:33
33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath,
he cannot be my disciple.
KJV
Matt 19:29-30
29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or
father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall
receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
KJV
cont
>>So, you are just as evil, as the wealthy and your
>>relationship with God is based on YOU and YOUR desires first, living in
>>worldliness and darkness and then making excuses for it.
>
> Looks like the pot calling the kettle black. Clean up your own life
> and YOUR dependency on money before you accuse strangers of anything.
HA! YOU are the one making excuses for your LOVE and SERVITUDE for money and
DOING NOTHING about it's evil, oppression, neglect, abuse, and slavery. I
would LOVE NOT to depend on money, but unfortunately, there are FEW TRUE
CHRISTIANS who fight against it, and since the WHOLE WORLD is under it's
tyranny, the ONLY thing I could do about it is RISE to RULE and DESTROY this
evil capitalistic system and money, but as long as you and those like you,
serve, support, defend and LOVE SATAN and HIS evil beast's system, I guess I
am stuck with fighting against evil, wicked, HYPOCRITES, like you and those
like you, until you are destroyed, as promised in scripture.
Luke 17:25-30
25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the
Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in
marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came,
and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank,
they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone
from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
KJV
cont
> The only freedom tyranny offers is the freedom to submit.
How funny, YOU are under tyranny, easily submitting and cowering to it and
then DEFEND IT. What a HYPOCRITE!
--
Dore
"Victoria Hirt" <n...@spam.please> wrote in message
news:1jsft0h61vuqhvqtm...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:11:20 GMT, "Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"Victoria Hirt" <n...@spam.please> wrote in message
>>news:4jddt0thg2bcog1uo...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Remember Job? He was stripped of everything he had, but because he
>>> was faithful to God, God restored his lands, his wealth, etc. This is
>>> only one of many stories in the Bible where wealth used correctly
>>> isn't evil.
>
>>Job didn't have MONEY, he had possessions, land, animals, etc.
>
> He was a very wealthy man.
>
>>> Have you divested yourself of all worldly good and are you living on
>>> the street living day by day totally trusting in God (lilies of the
>>> field) to take care of you? If not, you are in the world just like
>>> the rest of us.
>>
>>Actually, I have. In 1990, I forsook my job, all money, all of my
>>possessions, homes and all to be obedient to the Word of God and lived on
>>the street for 3 years. But because mankind was SO EVIL, it became
>>unbearable and so I returned to the work force to sustain myself, to find
>>peace away from the wicked people who covered the earth.
>
> Then you submitted to the "evil" and now are trying to blame others
> for your weakness and failure.
>
>>I still HATE money
>>and it's enslavement, and the ONLY reason that I am forced to seek it is
>>because evil men and this evil beast's system of capitalism FORCE me to,
>
> Go to another country. The holy men of India do not make money or
> work. They beg for food. You can certainly live on the streets.
>
>>since there are NO true Christians who are willing to give, do and work as
>>well as receive, FREELY, providing for each other's needs and sustenance,
>>and live the way God had intended.
>
> Let me get this straight. You think you are the only true Christian
> in the world, right?
>
>>The difference between you and I is that
>>I KNOW that money is evil and despise it, where you defend it's use, love
>>and serve it willingly without complaint.
>
> No, that is not the difference. I know that money in and of itself is
> not evil and I also know that is not what the Bible says. It says the
> LOVE of money is evil.
>
>>> Even by using a computer and internet link you are using the money
>>> that someone has. Poor or wealthy, it all boils down to the same
>>> thing - your relationship to God, Christ, and to your fellow man.
>>> The only freedom tyranny offers is the freedom to submit.
>>
>>Yes, because this evil system's beast of capitalism forces us all to.
>
> No one is forcing you to use a computer. If they are then give me
> your address and I will call the police immediately so you can be
> free not to use a computer.
>
>>The wealthy, just like yourself,
>
> I am not wealthy nor have I ever stated that I was. Those are merely
> your misguided assumptions.
>
>>are UNWILLING to give up anything, unwilling to
>>deny yourself anything, unwilling to sacrifice anything for the sake of
>>the
>>kingdom of God.
>
> Now wait a minute1 You are unwilling to suffer without the comforts
> of this world that money buys and have turned your back on the very
> things YOU believe and are accusing me, someone you do not know of
> being unwilling to sacrifice. Sounds like you are trying to justify
> YOUR weakness by accusing others of doing what you yourself do.
>
>>So, you are just as evil, as the wealthy and your
>>relationship with God is based on YOU and YOUR desires first, living in
>>worldliness and darkness and then making excuses for it.
>
> Looks like the pot calling the kettle black. Clean up your own life
> and YOUR dependency on money before you accuse strangers of anything.
Dore
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:g5lka2-...@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
> You ask for donations, you claim to be a religion, you are tax free.
I ahve NEVER asked for a donation in my life and I NEVER claimed to be a
religion and I am certainly NOT tax free. Why are you making lies up about
me?
--
Dore
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:g5lka2-...@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
> Dore wrote:
>> "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net> wrote in message
>> news:m51ja2-...@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Well damn Bore, you'd best get that message out to your bible thumping
>>>buddies.
>>>
>>>Especially those useless con artist on the boob tube. And while you are
>>>at it, you may want to take down your requests for "tax free donations"
>>>on your web site. After all, that's one of the draws for your rich,
>>>bible thumping, child molesting, lying, cheating, "can't pull a splinter,
>>>much less heal cancer", preacher friends.
>>
>>
>> HYPOCRITES, LIARS, FRAUDS and EVIL DOERS who USE the name of Christ for
>> personal gain and material pleasures are NOT my friends, nor are they any
>> friends of God, but are just as evil as the rest of you sinners and
>> wicked.
>>
>> PS. I have NO tax free donations ability on my website. In fact, on my
>> website, I condemn capitalism and money.
>>
>> cont
>>
> You ask for donations, you claim to be a religion, you are tax free.
>
> No different the Falwell, Robertson, Kennedy, or any other media bible
> thumper.
>
> Except for one major difference, none of them claim to be the second
> cuming. That is reserved for you Bore. You claim it, and when taken to
> task for it, run away screaming like a four year old in a sand box, that
> does not get her way.
>
> I pity you.
> >
>>>--
>>>There are none more ignorant and useless,
>>>than they that seek answers on their knees,
>>>with their eyes closed.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are none more ignorant and useless than those that seek answers
>> standing up, with their eyes wide open that don't have a leg to stand on,
>> and are blind, for they NEVER find any.
> >
> Did the voices in your head tell you to say that? Or have you failed to
> take your meds again?
>
> --
> There are none more ignorant and useless,
> than they that seek answers on their knees,
> with their eyes closed.
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@getnet.net
>
> A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
>
> Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
> ____________________________________________________________________
Dore
> Why? Because you say so? Sane people don't order their lives
> according to the beliefs of the insane.
Obviously, YOU do, because you bow, submit and cower to the beliefs and
capitalistic system of the evil wicked rulers of the world, and they are
more insane than anyone.
--
Dore
"Al Klein" <CellP...@optonline.com> wrote in message
news:p5agt0l6k60io5n9r...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:25:02 GMT, "Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net>
> said in alt.atheism:
>
>>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:62het0hajrrnuq5km...@4ax.com...
>
>>> Then, logically, even those with just a little money are a little
>>> evil. Thank you for the admission of guilt, Dore.
>
>>No, those of us who DESPISE money are not held accountable
>
> Why? Because you say so? Sane people don't order their lives
> according to the beliefs of the insane.
Dore
> 1) You're assuming that all wealthy love money.
They wouldn't BE wealthy if they didn't.
cont
> 2) "Wealthy" is relative. You own a computer (or, at least, access to
> one) so, compared to the homeless, you're wealthy. So you love money
> and are one of the most evil - by your own logic.
No, wealthy is being in the top half of the social ladder of what men call
"success". I DESPISE money and am fighting against this system, trying to
get it abolished. Obviously, you have NO clue.
--
Dore
"Al Klein" <CellP...@optonline.com> wrote in message
news:ngcgt0h63ot7kbpna...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 05:02:17 GMT, "Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net>
> said in alt.atheism:
>
>>The love of money is the ROOT of ALL EVIL, therefore ALL wealthy are the
>>most evil on the earth.
>
> 1) You're assuming that all wealthy love money.
>
> 2) "Wealthy" is relative. You own a computer (or, at least, access to
> one) so, compared to the homeless, you're wealthy. So you love money
> and are one of the most evil - by your own logic.
Stanley F. Nelson
Karl Rove thought he should to get him elected. Anything -- anything --
about Bush falls in the same category.
Stanley F. Nelson
Dallas.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Eliminate annoying spam!
My mailbox is protected by iHateSpam, the #1-rated spam buster."
Rump Ranger
I'd rather say that when a Christian says "Christ's teachings", it
means that most of what he actually said doesn't apply to them but
instead the rest of the human race. The Christians who thump the Bible
against "sinners" often times believe that they, and they alone, get a
free pass and that God doesn't mind their sin.
Rump Ranger
Al Klein wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 21:22:09 GMT, Pastor Dave
> <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> said in alt.atheism:
>
> >On 3 Jan 2005 11:02:33 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
> >Everest, cosmi...@yahoo.com pontificated:
>
> >>>Plenty. Is it moral to just start launching verbal
> >>>attacks on Christians? The typical atheist in these
> >>>groups hates Christians.
>
> >>If an atheist launches a verbal attack, that is his/her choice.
>
> >And it is immoral
>
> Morality is in the eye of the beholder, and it's not immoral in our
> eyes.
>
> >and wrong.
>
> "Wrong" is a value judgment - you keep yours and we'll keep ours.
>
That's quite a dangerous thing to say. Are you saying that rape isn't
really wrong just because it's a "value judgement" we make which should
be regarded as akin to a person's choice in salad dressings?
I'm not saying an atheist can lead a moral life (and many do ground it
in rational principles), but rejecting morality in it's entirety would
mean that a Stalin or a Hitler were no more evil than a normal person
who lives a life which hurts nobody. I reject that and you'd be hard
pressed to convince me otherwise.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
>
>
>
>>You ask for donations, you claim to be a religion, you are tax free.
>
>
>
> I ahve NEVER asked for a donation in my life and I NEVER claimed to be a
> religion and I am certainly NOT tax free. Why are you making lies up about
> me?
>
all the talking needed:
http://www.dorewilliamson.com/
Now, since you "claim" to hate money, and since you also "claim" that
you avoid it as much as possible, and you "claim" that you only use it
because the evil government requires you to. I'm curious;
How do you keep that piece of crap web site running?
ISP's are not into charity work, they are in it for the money Bore. So
just where do you get your money to pay your ISP?
And when it comes to lies, go look in a mirror Bore. The biggest lie
going for you, is that you are the second cuming, or some such nonsense.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>Al Klein wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 21:22:09 GMT, Pastor Dave
>> <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> said in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >On 3 Jan 2005 11:02:33 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
>> >Everest, cosmi...@yahoo.com pontificated:
>>
>> >>>Plenty. Is it moral to just start launching verbal
>> >>>attacks on Christians? The typical atheist in these
>> >>>groups hates Christians.
>>
>> >>If an atheist launches a verbal attack, that is his/her choice.
>>
>> >And it is immoral
>>
>> Morality is in the eye of the beholder, and it's not immoral in our
>> eyes.
>>
>> >and wrong.
>>
>> "Wrong" is a value judgment - you keep yours and we'll keep ours.
>>
>
>That's quite a dangerous thing to say. Are you saying that rape isn't
>really wrong just because it's a "value judgement" we make which should
>be regarded as akin to a person's choice in salad dressings?
I'm sure that if he'd meant that he'd have said it.
But it _is_ a value judgement based on the effect of one's actions on
the person one does it to.
A prime example is that evangelists don't see anything from with
constant harrassment of people to get them to convert. Those they do
it to see plenty wrong with it.
I don't see anything wrong with doing unto fundies as they have done
to us. But they think this os wrong.
>I'm not saying an atheist can lead a moral life (and many do ground it
>in rational principles), but rejecting morality in it's entirety would
>mean that a Stalin or a Hitler were no more evil than a normal person
>who lives a life which hurts nobody. I reject that and you'd be hard
>pressed to convince me otherwise.
Again that's nt what he said, and y ou know it.
Victoria Hirt
>What does this have to do with morals? I attack Christian views
>because many people claim they are Christian, yet they fail to follow
>Christ's teachings. On top of that, they also live immoral lives, then
>they believe they can pray and their slate is clean... Yet, because I
>don't pray, my slate is never clean and I am going to Hell regardless
>of how a good person I am.
Well, at least the rest of us will not have to put up with your
nonsense for eternity! That's a relief!
Bush Rules, Dems Drool
"Victoria Hirt" <n...@spam.please> wrote in message
Plus there's some question as to how good a person he really is!
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <CellP...@optonline.com> wrote in message
>news:6kcgt0lpeblq33abp...@4ax.com...
>> Satan? Oh, you mean the evil that your god created.
>Yea
Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you worship an evil god.
--
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein" <CellP...@optonline.com> wrote in message
>news:p5agt0l6k60io5n9r...@4ax.com...
>> Why? Because you say so? Sane people don't order their lives
>> according to the beliefs of the insane.
>Obviously, YOU do, because you bow, submit and cower to the beliefs and
>capitalistic system of the evil wicked rulers of the world
Do I? How?
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <CellP...@optonline.com> wrote in message
>news:ulcgt0h6ri9gqi5qi...@4ax.com...
>> So why doesn't your god provide everything we need without the need
>> for money? In fact, why did he create the concept of money at all?
>> (Since all things are his will, and he created everything, the blame,
>> if there is any, is his.)
>He did, everything that exists, God provided and gave FREELY. It was MAN who
>decided to make it his own
Since your god created a universe in which this was possible, it was
his fault, ultimately.
>God didn't create the concept of money, man did.
But your god created a universe in which the concept is possible, so
it's his fault, ultimately.
> Not all things are HIS will, where did you get that notion?
Your bible.
> MAN CHOOSING EVIL, is NOT God's will.
Since he created a universe in which it's possible, and he's
omniscient, so he knew it would happen, it is.
> God created everything, but man took what God has created
>and corrupted it, stole it, selfishly claimed it as his own, and turned what
>was good into evil.
And, since he knew that would happen, it's his fault.
>> Your god intended for others to support you?
>God created all things for man to SHARE freely and equally, giving and
>receiving FREELY, not using it to abuse, oppress, steal and enslave others
>with.
And he created a species that wouldn't share, knowing that it
wouldn't, so it's his fault.
>> Dore, you can always move to the Amazon and live in the jungle, away
>> from all other people, living off the land. That you CHOOSE to not do
>> so is merely your choice.
>No
Because you won't live by your own advice. You're the typical
hypocritical Christian.
>> You're *forced* to post to usenet?
>No, I am forced to PAY for it.
No you're not. You're only forced to pay for it if you CHOOSE to
post. Don;t blame others for your choices.
>> Typical ChristStain, unwilling to accept responsibility for her own
>> actions.
>The EVIL actions and corrupt, selfish, prideful, greedy and oppressive ways
>that men choose to do in the world are NOT MY responsibility.
If you're the omniscient creator god (which you've claimed to be) they
are.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <CellP...@optonline.com> wrote in message
>news:ngcgt0h63ot7kbpna...@4ax.com...
>> 1) You're assuming that all wealthy love money.
>They wouldn't BE wealthy if they didn't.
Care to try to prove that a kid born into money is born loving it?
(He's born wealthy, but would still be wealthy even if he detested
money.)
>> 2) "Wealthy" is relative. You own a computer (or, at least, access to
>> one) so, compared to the homeless, you're wealthy. So you love money
>> and are one of the most evil - by your own logic.
>No, wealthy is being in the top half of the social ladder
Not unless you want to redefine words, in which case you lose by
default.
>I DESPISE money
Not enough to live in utter poverty, evidently.
--
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>I'd rather say that when a Christian says "Christ's teachings", it
>means that most of what he actually said doesn't apply to them but
>instead the rest of the human race. The Christians who thump the Bible
>against "sinners" often times believe that they, and they alone, get a
>free pass and that God doesn't mind their sin.
Or that what they do, from their reading of the bible, isn't a sin.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 21:22:09 GMT, Pastor Dave
>> <newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> said in alt.atheism:
>> >On 3 Jan 2005 11:02:33 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
>> >Everest, cosmi...@yahoo.com pontificated:
>> >>>Plenty. Is it moral to just start launching verbal
>> >>>attacks on Christians? The typical atheist in these
>> >>>groups hates Christians.
>> >>If an atheist launches a verbal attack, that is his/her choice.
>> >And it is immoral
>> Morality is in the eye of the beholder, and it's not immoral in our
>> eyes.
>> >and wrong.
>> "Wrong" is a value judgment - you keep yours and we'll keep ours.
>That's quite a dangerous thing to say. Are you saying that rape isn't
>really wrong just because it's a "value judgement" we make which should
>be regarded as akin to a person's choice in salad dressings?
No, I'm saying that rape is horrible, but 'wrong' is a value judgment.
>I'm not saying an atheist can lead a moral life (and many do ground it
>in rational principles), but rejecting morality in it's entirety would
>mean that a Stalin or a Hitler were no more evil than a normal person
>who lives a life which hurts nobody. I reject that and you'd be hard
>pressed to convince me otherwise.
'Morality' is a system of right and wrong. In some moralities rape
might be considered 'right'. That doesn't make it a nice thing to do.
--
"Given that you exist and that you are aware of your situation and
surroundings, you will find yourself in a place which has conditions
exactly suitable to your being there. If the environment was
hostile or incompatible in some important way then you would not be
there in the first place. Therefore the suitability and seeming
perfection of your universe cannot be taken as evidence of anything
more than your existence in it."
- Edward Warren, "The naturalistic fallac
Pastor Dave
Mt. Everest, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
pontificated:
>But it _is_ a value judgement based on the effect of one's actions on
>the person one does it to.
>
>A prime example is that evangelists don't see anything from with
>constant harrassment of people to get them to convert. Those they do
>it to see plenty wrong with it.
Well isn't this hypocritical. Atheists attack and
harass Christians on a regular basis in these groups
and say this?
>I don't see anything wrong with doing unto fundies as they have done
>to us. But they think this is wrong.
So according to your logic, revenge is moral. Yet the
atheist argues against God, stating that no true loving
God would partake of revenge on people. I guess that
means you have just stated that you are not loving, but
revengeful. So who are you to point a finger at
anyone?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
Pastor Dave
Everest, "Rump Ranger" <buttp...@fadmail.com>
pontificated:
>> And when a Christian says "Christ's teachings", it typically means
>> their version of what Christ taught.
>>
>
>I'd rather say that when a Christian says "Christ's teachings", it
>means that most of what he actually said doesn't apply to them but
>instead the rest of the human race. The Christians who thump the Bible
>against "sinners" often times believe that they, and they alone, get a
>free pass and that God doesn't mind their sin.
And that would be wrong.
Pastor Dave
Everest, "Rump Ranger" <buttp...@fadmail.com>
pontificated:
>> "Wrong" is a value judgment - you keep yours and we'll keep ours.
>>
>
>That's quite a dangerous thing to say. Are you saying that rape isn't
>really wrong just because it's a "value judgement" we make which should
>be regarded as akin to a person's choice in salad dressings?
He'll tell you no, when it comes to things like rape,
yet that's what it boils down to. And he will have no
way to wiggle out of his own logic. Subjective
morality is a self refuting argument. I have proved
this to more than one atheist before. It is comical to
watch them try to squirm their way out of their own
logic, if it can be called that. :)
>I'm not saying an atheist can lead a moral life (and many do ground it
>in rational principles), but rejecting morality in it's entirety would
>mean that a Stalin or a Hitler were no more evil than a normal person
>who lives a life which hurts nobody. I reject that and you'd be hard
>pressed to convince me otherwise.
Exactly. That's what their logic forces one to
conclude.
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>There is NO difference in any other country. The WHOLE world is ruled by the
>BEAST, the New World Order.
Then your god has lost and it's all over. Learn to live with it.
--
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill