Subject: Re: The non-Evidence Question (was Re: The rock question! Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 11:55:44 -0600 From: Ken Smith Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,alt.atheism "Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote: > Thomas P. wrote: > > Louis Kuhelj wrote: > >> Al Klein wrote: > >>> Louis Kuhelj wrote: > >>>> Ken Smith wrote: > > >>>>> There is one thing that appears certain -- that Christians will use the > >>>>> "worship my god or he'll kick your ass" argument. Let's see if you can > >>>>> explain why we should kiss Jesus' ass, but not Hank's ... > > >>>> God is not in the ass kicking business. > > >>> What do you call the threat of eternally burning in hell, then? > > >> About the same as I call a threat of getting killed if I insist on jumping > >> from the Golden Gate bridge. Only a fool would believe that he would not > >> suffer any bodily injury by doing so. Only an idiot would insist that his > >> decision to jump had nothing to do with the resulting death/injury and > >> that it was God, who created gravity, that is to blame for the injuries or > >> death under such circumstances. > > > Obviously god made suffering possible. > > God also gave man instructions which, if followed, would have prevented all > suffering. So, why don't *you* obey these instructions? Why is it that *you* can't trade your sinful life of alcohol-impaired and deceitful fornication for guilt-free sex within the sanctioned bounds of holy matrimony? You mean, your god won't help you in this matter? (Gee, what a-- er-- surprise.) You have told us that the "responsibilities" involved in marriage are somehow to onerous for you to bear (and us heathen with successful marriages are understandably mystified as to what they might be), but it would seem to me that if God says something, you ought to make a passable effort to comply. So, what are those responsibilities you are so afraid of assuming? Fidelity? Honesty? Candor? Taking out the trash? It's a long post, but it's a delightfully funny one -- I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions, amid all the bland and tiresome threats of immolation from your invisible sky-daddy. [Our biggest dispute has to do with whether your holy Babble is the word of man, as opposed to God. As you have produceed no shred of credible evidence, much less enough evidence to reasonably allow us to conclude that your Babble is not of strictly human origin, we are constrained to dismiss you as a net-kook.] > But man disobeyed God's instructions, and now blames God for all > his suffering. I trust that you can all see the folly of that. I don't "blame God for all my suffering" but rather, do hold your god accountable for his failure to walk his talk. If I am to be liable for sins of omission, then in equity, so should your god. And "justice delayed is justice denied." Money talks, bullshit walks. And your god can take a hike. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Ted Admits He's Irresponsible (was Re: Ken Smith Lies (or else can't read, one) Date: 18 May 2002 12:01:14 GMT From: Ken Smith Organization: Concentric Internet Services Newsgroups: alt.fan.bob-larson,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,alt.atheism "Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote: > Ken Smith wrote: > > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: > >> Ken Smith wrote: > >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: > >>>> Ken Smith wrote: > >>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: > >>>>>> Ken Smith wrote: > >>>>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Now for a Christian, it would be virtous to remain celibate outside > >>>>>>>> of marriage -- but then I've never claimed to be the most virtuous > >>>>>>>> of Christians. > > >>>>>>>> When was the last time? Would you believe last night? Well, > >>>>>>>> almost, but not quite. Probably could have, if I had put forth a > >>>>>>>> little more effort. But at my age, the feeling sometimes seems to > >>>>>>>> be "why bother?". > > >>>>>> Ken, you bloody drongo, you. My reluctance wasn't due to any > >>>>>> inability to perform, > > >>>>> "But at my age" was *your* tacit admission to that effect. > > >>>> Alluding to the fact that I am no longer driven exclusively by hormones > >>>> as I was back when I was 20. > > >>> Either you have lost interest and/or capacity, or you haven't. > > >> Neither. Actually, capacity might be somewhat diminished from when I was, > >> say, 20 in that I don't rebound for an extra round or two like I used to, > >> but for the initial event, it's still there. But for me, there is another > >> consideration: inclination, based upon a desire to remain true to God's > >> commandments. (One thing I have found, however is that inclination seems > >> to be directly proportional to the amount of brewskies imbibed > > > I see. The inclination to remain true to God's commandments is a direct > > function of how many brews you've downed. > > No, no, no!!! You bloody drongo!!! I'm talking about the inclination to > engage in something CONTRARY to God's Word. We know it was a Freudian slip ... but it's still a damn funny one. :) > > Thus, it would follow that the nightly pilgrimages to the hotel bar are > > *spiritual* in nature. > > Liar. > > > You can only be a faithful Christian when you're stone drunk. :) > > Liar. It is a logical (and hilarious) deduction, based on your admissions. If your inclination to remain faithful is high and your ability to fornicate is diminished while you're stone drunk, and by your own admission, you are a fornicator under other circumstances, the conclusion is valid. Smile, take your lumps, and chug another VB. :) > >> -- which also seems to have an inverse relationship on the ability to > >> perform -- though in my case, with the amounts I imbibe, it doesn't become > >> a serious issue.) > > > As the great John Candy once said, "Drinking is about algebraic ratios. > > It's not that you had too much to drink; it's just that you're just too > > skinny!" > > And John Candy died of what, exactly? Let us just say that his obesity contributed mightily to his demise. > > Ted isn't a faithful Christian because he doesn't drink enough. :) > > Liar. Okay, so you DO drink enough. You're still not a faithful Christian, by your own public admission. > >>> Even though I'm not far behind you on the calendar, the concept of "why > >>> bother" has never crossed my mind. > > >> Of course not. You're a sinner. > > >>> "Why bother" is more the man in his seventies talking. > > >> Or the [unmarried] man wishing to remain true to God's Word. > > > "Honest, Officer, I was only coming back from worship services -- I can > > only remain true to God's Word when I'm three sheets to the wind!" > > Liar. > > > And the cop replies: "Faith and begorrah, I know what you mean, Teddi. I > > was an altar boy once, and the priests would have me take all the communion > > wine I could drink ..." > > Ken Smith's demented fantasies. > > > [Not all that uncommon in Boston, or so it would appear.] > > The roman church has its problems. And so do the Protestants (Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts, Bob Larson, Mike Warnke, Robert Tilton . . . shall I go on?). > >>>>>> but rather on a desire to avoid all the other attendant issues > >>>>>> associated with such an endeavour (i.e., this way I don't have to lie > >>>>>> to her, etc.). > > >>>> (Which, if I were driven by hormones, would take on much lesser > >>>> importance.) > > >>> Again, I really don't see the problem. > > >> Again, you're a sinner. > > >>> If you had a relationship worth having, there wouldn't be "attendant > >>> issues." > > >> This is true. And in my case, such a relationship would invariably > >> involve marriage. But marriage has a whole other set of consideration. > > > And these "considerations" are? > > Responsibilities. Okay, so you're totally irresponsible. Why am I not surprised? :) > > Again, such 'qualifications' are totally beyond my comprehension. My wife > > isn't just my wife; she is my best friend. What considerations, pray tell, > > would keep you from having that kind of a relationship? > > You don't find women with such a level of compatibility every day. And you *don't* let 'em go when you find 'em. :) > > Is is that you are secretly gay (and living a lie), and can't really have a > > functional relationship with a woman? > > One is "gay" to the extent that they are exuberantly happy. And homosexuals > are anything but happy, exuberantly or otherwise. (And no, I'm not > homosexual, btw.) > > > Or do you buy wholesale from Victoria's Secret? > > No. I'll accept that answer; picture Austin Powers' "Fat Bastard" in a thong. (Almost as revolting as an aroused Marv Albert in a garter and panties, without that critter on his head.) > >>> A sound relationship isn't about having sex pretty much whenever you want > >>> it > > >> Of course not. Never was. > > >>> (although it is one of the side benefits). > > >> Oh, you think so, do you? Maybe you and your wife never fight and she > >> gets headaches, but yours is the exception and not the rule. (Or perhaps > >> the "pretty much" in the above covers this exception.) :-) > > > Let us just say that I don't ascribe to the Doug Gilliland Cave-man School > > of Marriage, where the husband has a right to rape his wife. > > A husband cannot rape his wife. To suggest that he can is to diminish the > seriousness of the crime of rape, and to make it lesser than what it properly > ought to be. California law says it is, and so does common sense. Rape is a crime of power. > > If sex isn't a product of mutual consent, it ain't worth doing anyway. > > Um, yes, I would agree with this statement. > > > And no, my wife and I don't fight very often, because we are both so laid- > > back, and we have so little to fight about. It's a nice deal to have, when > > you can get it. :) > > It's a deal that virtually everyone would like to have. But it starts with a good attitude, and requires effort. It's like keeping your body in shape -- there's a price to be paid, but it's well worth it. > >>> But unless and until you figure out a healthier way to relate to women, I > >>> might as well be talking to a wall. > > >> I have no problems relating to women (despite what some maladjusted > >> battle-axes who post to the net might say). > > > You'll have a tough time convincing us of that ... :) > > But then, you easily believe the lie that there is no God. How many times do I have to tell you that I'm a deist? > >>>>> Why not? > > >>>> Because I don't like doing it (the lying and taking advantage). > > >>> Well, then, don't do it. All you have to do is tell the truth. (Not a > >>> tall order for us heathen.) If you feel like it's such a bother, then > >>> you might as well be straight-up. > > >> There are occasions when it's not necessary. Like the traveling > >> businesswoman away from her husband who wants to have a fling just for one > >> night. (Of course, that's not quite in keeping with God's commandment > >> either. And I end up feeling bad for the husband afterwards. Such is the > >> life of the errant Christian.) > > > Yup. No morals. > > No, but rather a failure to live up to one's morals. I thought we've already found the solution to *that* one -- stay stone drunk! > > No accountability. > > Don't kid yourself. There's plenty that one can be held accountable for. I don't see it. Your god isn't into honesty, integrity, or accountability. > > But that's also the life of the pious Christian. > > I'm not much into piety. Much of it is phony, as I'm sure you're aware. > > >>> Guess I've been away from the dating game too long. Perhaps it's just > >>> me, but I don't see why you can't just *be* honest. > > >> "Hello, darling. I'd like to screw you tonight because it beats shaking > >> hands with the President." > > > If that is what really resides in your heart, you are truly destitute. > > Under normal circumstances, that's certainly not what's in my heart. Then, why did you say it? > > Whatever happened to "I like you, I enjoy being with you, and I'd like to > > get to know you better?" > > Words to that effect might be said. Then, say them. And *mean* them. Otherwise, move on. > > Your problem is a tragic attitude. > > What problem? You evidently have Leykis' Disease -- you are not looking for a friend and companion but rather, a sperm receptacle. Any hope you still have of having a healthy relationship starts with a change in attitude. > >>>>> After all, if *FORNICATING* doesn't bother you, hey! > > >>>> In such a context, yes, it bothers me. (It's just that on some > >>>> occasions, not getting any bothers me more.) > > >>> The simple fact is that, in your Bible, "thou shalt not" really means, > >>> "thou *should* not." > > >> No, the simple fact is that it is man's nature to sin. > > > And it doesn't matter whether you do or not. > > Of course it matters. How? Bob Larson is just one example of proof positive that it doesn't matter. Your god never holds televangelists accountable for their sins -- Paul Crouch is reportedly still driving his 7-series Bimmer around Newport Beach, and Jan reportedly still has her boy-toys. Money talks, bullshit walks. If your god thought your conduct mattered and had the power to do something about it, we'd see a radically different world. > >>>>> what's another sin between you and your god? :) > > >>>> You tell me. > > >>> *I'M* supposed to know? HOWL!!! > > >> Okay, I'll give you a hint: Man isn't a sinner because he sins, man sins > >> because he is a sinner. > > >>> What you are saying tells us a lot about your Christian walk -- it's > >>> essentially non-existent. > > >> Sometimes it seems that way. But the description I have given you is not > >> of a consistent habit, but rather of certain stages on the downside. The > >> upside is far different. > > > I don't see it in your life -- or any other professing Christian's life, > > for that matter. > > Because the god of this world has blinded your eyes. I don't see charity, humility, integrity, compassion, or any of the other alleged qualities of the Christian in your life, Ted. I see you referring to women as "scags" and 'hos (and then denying it), boasting about (and then, attempting to offer a ridiculous denial of your part in) terrorizing a homosexual, and openly admitting that you are a fornicator. How I am supposed to see a "Christian walk" in your life is not obvious at all. > > Your god displays all the tell-tale characteristics of nonexistence. > > But that's not how it's going to be when you stand before Him at the Final > Judgement. I'm about as worried about what Al'lah's going to say -- after all, on 9/11, he showed us that he has more 'scoreboard'. Nailing that priest while taking his helmet off as he gave a firefighter the last rites? If you had to rate the two gods on how they did on that day, Al'lah won. Assuming there is a 'final accounting' of our lives, I have no reason to believe that a just god would hold us liable for not believing a fanciful myth like that contained in the NT, in the absence of any semblance of credible evidence. I think he would be more impressed if we used the native intelligence we had. But then again, Stalin was like your god -- and almost as weird. > >>> You regard women as bitches, skags, and 'hos, > > >> Lies. > > > Just by way of example: > > > "The freebies are such scags that I wouldn't f___ them with your d___." > > -- Ted Kaldis <3CC2BAED.E30D79F2@worldnet.att.net>. > > And? You claimed that I lied, and I proved that you lied. What a, er, um, surprise. > > Frankly, I had never even heard the term "scag" before you used it; the > > closest analogous term is "skank." > > You get the meaning. I do. Hence, my *accurate* observation. > > And since it's either free or for pay, every other woman must by definition > > be a 'ho. > > Too simplistic a distinction. You're the one who stuck your proverbial foot in your mouth. I'm not obliged to help you extricate it. :) > > Which brings me back to my question: > > > "Was/Is your mother a scag, or a 'ho?" > > >>> and appear to think of them as nothing more than mere sperm receptacles. > > >> Only when I gotta have it so bad that I can't help myself. > > >>> No wonder you never married. > > >> I never married for reasons other than these. > > > Because you're such a jerk at home that no woman could live with you? > > No, because I was never willing to take on the responsibilities that marriage > requires. And what "responsibilities" are those? Fidelity? Honesty? Candor? I can see why you'd have problems with those; after all, you *ARE* a "professing Christian." Commitment? Christians are more inclined to divorce than their heathen counterparts. Taking out the trash? I take it that you don't do that at home.... :) As one who has been married for over twenty years -- and one who finds the benefits far outweighing the costs -- I honestly don't see what your problem is. What "responsibilities" are so onerous that they have kept you from tying the knot? > > LOL! I honestly can't envision any reason why any man wouldn't want to get > > married that wouldn't involve a deep, dark, and embarrassing secret (e.g., > > Ted is secretly gay). > > The queers have been saying this for about 14 years now. I wonder why? I guess it's tough to ID you in a trench-coat.... :) > But nobody has been able to prove it, ....who has had the incentive to prove it. > because it ain't true. I'm still waiting for an elucidation of those "responsibilities" that you consider so onerous and unreasonable.... > >>> And you don't seem to care enough about those women you violate by false > >>> pretense to tell them the truth. > > >> I don't know so much about "false pretences". But the "lies" are like > >> what Pinocchio said to his girlfriend: "Come sit on my face, and I'll tell > >> you sweet lies". > > > Whatever happened to, "I like you, I enjoy being around you, and I want to > > get to know you better?" > > Words to this effect have been said before. > > > That is the foundation for a healthy relationship; > > Yes, in the event that such words are true. If they aren't true, then you shouldn't be saying them. > > I can see why you've never had one. > > Who says I haven't? > > >>> Guess that's what Christianity is all about. Lying to yourself, and > >>> lying to others ... > > >> No, that's what sinning is about. You should know that better than > >> anyone. > > > Can't say that I do. > > Because you cannot tell the truth? It seems to me that you're the one who has a problem with veracity....