But i'm the bad person

Religions > Atheism > But *i'm* the bad person

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 10

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"kathryn"
Date:	21 Apr 2005 02:03:06 PM
Object:	But i'm the bad person

Gotta love the warm snuggly christians - on this whole other forum
It's bigotted and intolerant of us for having a problem with a supposedly
secular site displaying a special notice that we're all really sad about
JPII dying (we are?!)
Me saying that there is no god is more insulting than a christian telling me
(when they know I'm an atheist) that "god loves me"
I'm confrontational for feeling (and not being able to hide) a slight
replusion for someone who thinks that the whole AIDS problem in Africa has
bugger all to do with the pope since all the folks have to do is stop having
sex and it's not his fault if the only part they listen to is the "don't use
condoms" bit.
Which was also basically the answer to my sarcastic comments on the
"success" of the abstinence only sex ed programmes. I suggest that taking
the moral high ground wasn't actually the most important thing.
they must think their god loves hypocricy.
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	21 Apr 2005 03:26:27 PM

"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:d48td9$q0d$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

Define 'we'.
And doesn't the death of every human ilicit some sense of sadness?

Me saying that there is no god is more insulting than a christian telling
me (when they know I'm an atheist) that "god loves me"

Why would anyone think you were being insulting when you say 'There is no
god', unless you are doing it in a church during worship services or
following "There is no god" with 'you moron' or something similar? How could
your opinion about the existance of deity be insulting, other than the
manner in which you express it? Your opinion is your opinion.
Why are you insulted if someone says 'God loves you'? Why should their
opinion give you hives? It's not as if, according to you, God COULD love
you, is it?

I'm confrontational for feeling (and not being able to hide) a slight
replusion for someone who thinks that the whole AIDS problem in Africa has
bugger all to do with the pope since all the folks have to do is stop
having sex and it's not his fault if the only part they listen to is the
"don't use condoms" bit.

Er, isn't that pretty much true, though? Just HOW many cases of AIDS are NOT
spread through sexual conduct?
Can you tell me, honestly, that if the folks in Africa who are getting this
very nasty disease would simply restrict their sexual encounters to one
other person and keep to that one other person, the AIDS epidemic there
wouldn't pretty much die out in a generation? And when you think about it,
hard as it is to deal with it, isn't that about the only way it WILL be
stamped out? This has nothing to do with morality or freedom or anything
else. This is just reality. AIDS is an STD. Sexually transmitted disease. It
doesn't matter what religion you are, or are not; doesn't matter whether you
think you are entitled to sleep with every guy and his sheep. The virus
doesn't give a damn. IT's not listening. Sex spreads AIDS. Sorry about that.
And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

Which was also basically the answer to my sarcastic comments on the
"success" of the abstinence only sex ed programmes. I suggest that taking
the moral high ground wasn't actually the most important thing.

they must think their god loves hypocricy.

And you are getting a little weird. That's what I don't get about this
entire AIDS thing. If it were any other disease, that was being spread by,
oh, wearing orange sandals to more than one party, would you be protesting
because all people HAVE A RIGHT TO ORANGE SANDALS? Or would you accept
reality and say that yeah, if everybody just kept their sandals in the
closet, the disease would go away; whether you WANT to wear them to more
than one party or not, it's just not a good idea.
Here's the thing; *I* think God loves you. If you are insulted by that,
that's not my problem. YOU think that there is no god. If I get insulted by
that, (and I don't, by the way) what difference does that make? I can tell
you this; more people are being sued for saying 'God loves you ' than are
for saying 'there is no God'. Just in case you are going to pull the 'they
are forcing their beliefs down my throat' crap.
.

User: "Denis Loubet"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	21 Apr 2005 04:31:31 PM

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:T%T9e.65167$9i7.23155@trnddc04...

"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:d48td9$q0d$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

Define 'we'.

Atheists, I presume.

And doesn't the death of every human ilicit some sense of sadness?

Really? Are you saying there were no celebrations at the death of Hitler?

Me saying that there is no god is more insulting than a christian telling
me (when they know I'm an atheist) that "god loves me"

Good question, except the very existence of atheists says to the Christian
that there are some people (the atheists) who think they (the theists) are
deluded and wrong. That's the unfortunate implication of skepticism of any
sort.

Why are you insulted if someone says 'God loves you'?

Because to accept it implies tacit approval that there's a god that loves
you, or tacit approval of unjustified beliefs.

Why should their opinion give you hives? It's not as if, according to you,
God COULD love you, is it?

To accept it is to be complicit.

I'm confrontational for feeling (and not being able to hide) a slight
replusion for someone who thinks that the whole AIDS problem in Africa
has bugger all to do with the pope since all the folks have to do is stop
having sex and it's not his fault if the only part they listen to is the
"don't use condoms" bit.

Er, isn't that pretty much true, though? Just HOW many cases of AIDS are
NOT spread through sexual conduct?

Perhaps the confrontation has more to do with the deliberate missing of the
point. Like now.

Can you tell me, honestly, that if the folks in Africa who are getting
this very nasty disease would simply restrict their sexual encounters to
one other person and keep to that one other person, the AIDS epidemic
there wouldn't pretty much die out in a generation? And when you think
about it, hard as it is to deal with it, isn't that about the only way it
WILL be stamped out? This has nothing to do with morality or freedom or
anything else. This is just reality. AIDS is an STD. Sexually transmitted
disease. It doesn't matter what religion you are, or are not; doesn't
matter whether you think you are entitled to sleep with every guy and his
sheep. The virus doesn't give a damn. IT's not listening. Sex spreads
AIDS. Sorry about that.

Human nature is human nature. Something you are ignoring.

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

But it HELPS.

Which was also basically the answer to my sarcastic comments on the
"success" of the abstinence only sex ed programmes. I suggest that
taking the moral high ground wasn't actually the most important thing.

they must think their god loves hypocricy.

Humans do not behave like the logical little black and white robots you want
them to be.
Orange sandals is not an appropriate analogy. A more appropriate analogy
would be breathing.

Here's the thing; *I* think God loves you. If you are insulted by that,
that's not my problem.

Do you agree with the thing you worship that atheists DESERVE eternal
torture in hell?
That's a punishment I would not wish on my worst enemy, yet you supposedly
think I DESERVE it.
Do you start to get a glimmer of how that might be insulting?

YOU think that there is no god. If I get insulted by that, (and I don't,
by the way) what difference does that make? I can tell you this; more
people are being sued for saying 'God loves you ' than are for saying
'there is no God'. Just in case you are going to pull the 'they are
forcing their beliefs down my throat' crap.

Yeah, we only think you're a little deluded. You think we DESERVE eternal
torture in a lake of fire.
I'd say the balances of courtesy tip way to one side, wouldn't you?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http:/www.io.com/~dloubet
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	21 Apr 2005 08:01:01 PM

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:7oOdnRtQ4N5vh_XfRVn-2A@io.com...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:T%T9e.65167$9i7.23155@trnddc04...

"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:d48td9$q0d$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

Define 'we'.

Atheists, I presume.

And doesn't the death of every human ilicit some sense of sadness?

Really? Are you saying there were no celebrations at the death of Hitler?

Well now, that's got to be the quickest use of the Hitler card I've seen in
awhile. However, since you brought it up, are you saying that there was
no-one who mourned when Hitler offed himself? Are you saying that Pope John
Paul II was the equivalent of Hitler?

Me saying that there is no god is more insulting than a christian
telling me (when they know I'm an atheist) that "god loves me"

Of course. But that doesn't mean that it's insulting.

Why are you insulted if someone says 'God loves you'?

Because to accept it implies tacit approval that there's a god that loves
you, or tacit approval of unjustified beliefs.

Oh, talk about a double standard here; look either BOTH statements 'there is
no God' and 'God loves you" are insults, or neither are. Because everything
you say about 'God loves you', that accepting it implies tacit approval of
the sentiment, applies to accepting "There is no God", doesn't it? If you
are honor bound to be insulted by, or refuse to accept gracefully, a
statement like 'God loves you", then the theist has every right to get just
as ***** at you if you say 'there is no God'. For exactly the same
reason.
And by the way, you really need to learn the meaning of accepting things in
the spirit in which they are offered. "God loves you" ? Why, say something
like " well, thank you, that you would think one would is a compliment".
Which it is. Just like the theist should say in response to 'There is no
God" something like "well, I understand you think so, I believe that there
is" and leave it at that.

Why should their opinion give you hives? It's not as if, according to
you, God COULD love you, is it?

To accept it is to be complicit.

Then you should understand that in the same spirit, to accept 'There is no
God" is being complicit in THAT opinion. Why should a theist put up with
having to be nice to you when you say that, but put up with your discourtesy
in return?

I'm confrontational for feeling (and not being able to hide) a slight
replusion for someone who thinks that the whole AIDS problem in Africa
has bugger all to do with the pope since all the folks have to do is
stop having sex and it's not his fault if the only part they listen to
is the "don't use condoms" bit.

Er, isn't that pretty much true, though? Just HOW many cases of AIDS are
NOT spread through sexual conduct?

Perhaps the confrontation has more to do with the deliberate missing of
the point. Like now.

Human nature is human nature. Something you are ignoring.

Human nature is going to get an entire population killed. Unless they do
something about the activities that are killing them. Human nature or not.
And I have news for you. It is quite possible to live a full and happy life
without having sex every other minute with myriad different partners along
the way. It's even possible to have a happy and fulfilled (and considerably
longer, considering AIDS) life if you have sex with only one person and are
very, very careful about who that person is.

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

But it HELPS.

But it doesn't fix the problem. But believe me, I'm all for condom use.

Which was also basically the answer to my sarcastic comments on the
"success" of the abstinence only sex ed programmes. I suggest that
taking the moral high ground wasn't actually the most important thing.

they must think their god loves hypocricy.

Humans do not behave like the logical little black and white robots you
want them to be.

That's a lie. They CAN. They do. It's possible. It's a matter of getting
them to see the choices, in real terms. You do this, you ARE going to die.
Rather nastily. You refrain, and you could live a good, long, healthy life.
Many, many human beings have made such choices and been quite content with
them.

Orange sandals is not an appropriate analogy. A more appropriate analogy
would be breathing.

*****. promiscuity is NOT required for life. IT's not required for
happiness. Indeed, being promiscuous is pretty much a gaurantee that you
will NOT be very happy. The odds are huge that you will get some nasty
disease. Your relationships will suffer...you may not even be able to HAVE a
long lasting and trusting relationship.

Here's the thing; *I* think God loves you. If you are insulted by that,
that's not my problem.

Do you agree with the thing you worship that atheists DESERVE eternal
torture in hell?

Beg questions much?
First, you might want to ascertain whether or not I believe that there is a
hell, that it is a place of eternal torture, and that atheists are going
there.
Just to help you out here, the answers are yes, no and no. Wanna rephrase
that?

That's a punishment I would not wish on my worst enemy, yet you supposedly
think I DESERVE it.

I do, eh? Like I said, beg questions much?

Do you start to get a glimmer of how that might be insulting?

No. for one thing, the phrase 'God loves you" doesn't sound like a curse to
be damned to eternal hellfire. But that's just me.

Yeah, we only think you're a little deluded. You think we DESERVE eternal
torture in a lake of fire.

I'd say the balances of courtesy tip way to one side, wouldn't you?

I think you need to stop making stupid assumptions, personally.
.

User: "Tukla Ratte"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	22 Apr 2005 05:05:08 PM

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> writes:

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:7oOdnRtQ4N5vh_XfRVn-2A@io.com...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:T%T9e.65167$9i7.23155@trnddc04...

< snip >

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

But it HELPS.

But it doesn't fix the problem.

Of course condoms don't fix the problem, but they reduce the spread
of the disease. The Catholic Church, however, made every effort to
convince people that they *don't* help, resulting in countless
people not bothering to use them. How many thousands have died
because the Vatican lied?
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
aa1347, Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	22 Apr 2005 08:49:51 PM

"Tukla Ratte" <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:m2vf6ecvsb.fsf@stitch.tukla.net...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> writes:

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:7oOdnRtQ4N5vh_XfRVn-2A@io.com...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:T%T9e.65167$9i7.23155@trnddc04...

< snip >

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

But it HELPS.

But it doesn't fix the problem.

How many of those thousands of people actually are Catholic, and thus would
be considered liable to pay attention?
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	22 Apr 2005 05:21:13 PM

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:05:08 -0500, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> writes:

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:7oOdnRtQ4N5vh_XfRVn-2A@io.com...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:T%T9e.65167$9i7.23155@trnddc04...

< snip >

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

But it HELPS.

But it doesn't fix the problem.

The sad thing is that the sociopaths doing this imagine they get to
decide other people's consciences for them. And then blame the victims
for not abstaining. They know nothing of human nature. People are
going to have sex. It's why those states which "teach" abstinence
instead of responsibility have higer teenage VD and abortion rates.
.

User: "DanielSan"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	22 Apr 2005 05:34:56 PM

Tukla Ratte wrote:

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> writes:

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:7oOdnRtQ4N5vh_XfRVn-2A@io.com...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:T%T9e.65167$9i7.23155@trnddc04...

< snip >

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

But it HELPS.

But it doesn't fix the problem.

Saying that condoms don't help is like saying that seatbelts don't help
when you're drinking and driving. Sure, it'll protect you in an
accident, but it won't stop the car from being smashed into a tree.
So, what? Do we just stop using seatbelts, then, because it doesn't fix
the problem?
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	22 Apr 2005 08:50:46 PM

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:acudna6Pv5Bk5vTfRVn-oA@comcast.com...

Tukla Ratte wrote:

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> writes:

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:7oOdnRtQ4N5vh_XfRVn-2A@io.com...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:T%T9e.65167$9i7.23155@trnddc04...

< snip >

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

But it HELPS.

But it doesn't fix the problem.

Saying that condoms don't help is like saying that seatbelts don't help
when you're drinking and driving. Sure, it'll protect you in an accident,
but it won't stop the car from being smashed into a tree.

So, what? Do we just stop using seatbelts, then, because it doesn't fix
the problem?

So use condoms....but frankly, they are a little like equipping cars with
airbags....and forgetting the brakes.
.

User: "DanielSan"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	22 Apr 2005 11:02:19 PM

DianaC wrote:

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:acudna6Pv5Bk5vTfRVn-oA@comcast.com...

Tukla Ratte wrote:

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> writes:

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:7oOdnRtQ4N5vh_XfRVn-2A@io.com...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:T%T9e.65167$9i7.23155@trnddc04...

< snip >

And condom use helps. But it doesn't fix the problem.

But it HELPS.

But it doesn't fix the problem.

Saying that condoms don't help is like saying that seatbelts don't help
when you're drinking and driving. Sure, it'll protect you in an accident,
but it won't stop the car from being smashed into a tree.

So, what? Do we just stop using seatbelts, then, because it doesn't fix
the problem?

So use condoms....but frankly, they are a little like equipping cars with
airbags....and forgetting the brakes.

Yes. You need multiple sources of protection. Remove one and you're in
a world of trouble.
Condoms + Education + Supervision + Raising Your Kids + Not allowing
televison to Raise Them = Moral and Healthy Child.
(Note: "Religion" is not in the above equation. You don't need
religion to be moral and healthy.)
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	24 Apr 2005 09:24:15 AM

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:T_idnR04sYQuVfTfRVn-vQ@comcast.com...

DianaC wrote:

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:acudna6Pv5Bk5vTfRVn-oA@comcast.com...

So use condoms....but frankly, they are a little like equipping cars with
airbags....and forgetting the brakes.

Yes. You need multiple sources of protection. Remove one and you're in a
world of trouble.

Condoms + Education + Supervision + Raising Your Kids + Not allowing
televison to Raise Them = Moral and Healthy Child.

(Note: "Religion" is not in the above equation. You don't need religion
to be moral and healthy.)

No. You don't.
but you DO need a moral/ethical system that is 'other-centered'. That is, a
system that recognizes that other people have needs, abilities and rights
that are as important as yours are, and that you will not keep yours if you
don't allow them theirs. Just as there are atheistic systems recognize this,
so are there theistic systems that do. And both concepts allow for systems
that royally screw up, too.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	23 Apr 2005 09:23:22 PM

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:02:19 -0700, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:

DianaC wrote:

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:acudna6Pv5Bk5vTfRVn-oA@comcast.com...

Tukla Ratte wrote:

[]

Saying that condoms don't help is like saying that seatbelts don't help
when you're drinking and driving. Sure, it'll protect you in an accident,
but it won't stop the car from being smashed into a tree.

So, what? Do we just stop using seatbelts, then, because it doesn't fix
the problem?

So use condoms....but frankly, they are a little like equipping cars with
airbags....and forgetting the brakes.

Yes. You need multiple sources of protection. Remove one and you're in
a world of trouble.

Condoms + Education + Supervision + Raising Your Kids + Not allowing
televison to Raise Them = Moral and Healthy Child.

(Note: "Religion" is not in the above equation. You don't need
religion to be moral and healthy.)

All too often religion brings the opposite.
--
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
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	24 Apr 2005 09:25:44 AM

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:hn0m6116mut6ntpoj7r3i1nle0k4uckns4@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:02:19 -0700, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:

DianaC wrote:

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:acudna6Pv5Bk5vTfRVn-oA@comcast.com...

Tukla Ratte wrote:

[]

Saying that condoms don't help is like saying that seatbelts don't help
when you're drinking and driving. Sure, it'll protect you in an
accident,
but it won't stop the car from being smashed into a tree.

So, what? Do we just stop using seatbelts, then, because it doesn't fix
the problem?

So use condoms....but frankly, they are a little like equipping cars
with
airbags....and forgetting the brakes.

Yes. You need multiple sources of protection. Remove one and you're in
a world of trouble.

Condoms + Education + Supervision + Raising Your Kids + Not allowing
televison to Raise Them = Moral and Healthy Child.

(Note: "Religion" is not in the above equation. You don't need
religion to be moral and healthy.)

All too often religion brings the opposite.

the same can be said for systems that do not recognize deity. The problem
lies, not in the religion/system, but in those who profess to believe in
them, but don't behave as if they do.

User: "DanielSan"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	24 Apr 2005 12:03:05 PM

DianaC wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:hn0m6116mut6ntpoj7r3i1nle0k4uckns4@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:02:19 -0700, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:

DianaC wrote:

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:acudna6Pv5Bk5vTfRVn-oA@comcast.com...

Tukla Ratte wrote:

[]

Saying that condoms don't help is like saying that seatbelts don't help
when you're drinking and driving. Sure, it'll protect you in an
accident,
but it won't stop the car from being smashed into a tree.

So, what? Do we just stop using seatbelts, then, because it doesn't fix
the problem?

So use condoms....but frankly, they are a little like equipping cars
with
airbags....and forgetting the brakes.

Yes. You need multiple sources of protection. Remove one and you're in
a world of trouble.

Condoms + Education + Supervision + Raising Your Kids + Not allowing
televison to Raise Them = Moral and Healthy Child.

(Note: "Religion" is not in the above equation. You don't need
religion to be moral and healthy.)

All too often religion brings the opposite.

the same can be said for systems that do not recognize deity. The problem
lies, not in the religion/system, but in those who profess to believe in
them, but don't behave as if they do.

So, you agree that atheism is not immoral.
You're learning. :-)
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	24 Apr 2005 10:00:18 PM

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:9tCdnbV_5sGvTPbfRVn-jg@comcast.com...

DianaC wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message

the same can be said for systems that do not recognize deity. The problem
lies, not in the religion/system, but in those who profess to believe in
them, but don't behave as if they do.

So, you agree that atheism is not immoral.

You're learning. :-)

Daniel, a great many atheists on this list have 'plonked' me. A great many
are extremely irritated at me, Some think I'm one of the weirder theists on
board, but none of 'em have EVER heard me say that atheism is immoral.
One can make a case for it being Amoral, (as in 'without morals, either good
OR bad) but not 'IMmoral'. After all, atheism is simply and only a lack of
belief in deity. Right? (Grin)
There are many, MANY ethical systems around; some fit under the atheist
paradigm, some a theist one, and there atheistic systems that are about as
immoral as they can be. Same can be said of some theist systems.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	24 Apr 2005 04:15:26 PM

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:25:44 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:hn0m6116mut6ntpoj7r3i1nle0k4uckns4@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:02:19 -0700, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:

DianaC wrote:

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:acudna6Pv5Bk5vTfRVn-oA@comcast.com...

Tukla Ratte wrote:

[]

Saying that condoms don't help is like saying that seatbelts don't help
when you're drinking and driving. Sure, it'll protect you in an
accident,
but it won't stop the car from being smashed into a tree.

So, what? Do we just stop using seatbelts, then, because it doesn't fix
the problem?

So use condoms....but frankly, they are a little like equipping cars
with
airbags....and forgetting the brakes.

Yes. You need multiple sources of protection. Remove one and you're in
a world of trouble.

Condoms + Education + Supervision + Raising Your Kids + Not allowing
televison to Raise Them = Moral and Healthy Child.

(Note: "Religion" is not in the above equation. You don't need
religion to be moral and healthy.)

All too often religion brings the opposite.

the same can be said for systems that do not recognize deity.

You do love your nonsequitors.

The problem lies, not in the religion/system, but in those who profess to believe in
them, but don't behave as if they do.

Now you're being disingenous. /cue Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph to name
two.
--
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
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	24 Apr 2005 10:01:16 PM

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:r03o61dnc295t7oojk613gkniqmmcli022@4ax.com...

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:25:44 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:hn0m6116mut6ntpoj7r3i1nle0k4uckns4@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:02:19 -0700, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:

DianaC wrote:

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:acudna6Pv5Bk5vTfRVn-oA@comcast.com...

Tukla Ratte wrote:

[]

Saying that condoms don't help is like saying that seatbelts don't
help
when you're drinking and driving. Sure, it'll protect you in an
accident,
but it won't stop the car from being smashed into a tree.

So, what? Do we just stop using seatbelts, then, because it doesn't
fix
the problem?

So use condoms....but frankly, they are a little like equipping cars
with
airbags....and forgetting the brakes.

Yes. You need multiple sources of protection. Remove one and you're in
a world of trouble.

Condoms + Education + Supervision + Raising Your Kids + Not allowing
televison to Raise Them = Moral and Healthy Child.

(Note: "Religion" is not in the above equation. You don't need
religion to be moral and healthy.)

All too often religion brings the opposite.

the same can be said for systems that do not recognize deity.

You do love your nonsequitors.

The problem lies, not in the religion/system, but in those who profess to
believe in
them, but don't behave as if they do.

Now you're being disingenous. /cue Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph to name
two.

OK, who the flip are Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph?
.

User: "stoney"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	25 Apr 2005 03:34:12 PM

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:01:16 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:r03o61dnc295t7oojk613gkniqmmcli022@4ax.com...

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:25:44 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:hn0m6116mut6ntpoj7r3i1nle0k4uckns4@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:02:19 -0700, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:

DianaC wrote:

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:acudna6Pv5Bk5vTfRVn-oA@comcast.com...

Tukla Ratte wrote:

[]

Saying that condoms don't help is like saying that seatbelts don't
help
when you're drinking and driving. Sure, it'll protect you in an
accident,
but it won't stop the car from being smashed into a tree.

So, what? Do we just stop using seatbelts, then, because it doesn't
fix
the problem?

So use condoms....but frankly, they are a little like equipping cars
with
airbags....and forgetting the brakes.

Yes. You need multiple sources of protection. Remove one and you're in
a world of trouble.

Condoms + Education + Supervision + Raising Your Kids + Not allowing
televison to Raise Them = Moral and Healthy Child.

(Note: "Religion" is not in the above equation. You don't need
religion to be moral and healthy.)

All too often religion brings the opposite.

the same can be said for systems that do not recognize deity.

You do love your nonsequitors.

The problem lies, not in the religion/system, but in those who profess to
believe in
them, but don't behave as if they do.

Now you're being disingenous. /cue Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph to name
two.

OK, who the flip are Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph?

Paul Hill-Christian who murdered a doctor
Eric Rudolph-Christian who bombed medical centres and the Atlanta
Olympics.
--
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
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	25 Apr 2005 05:23:36 PM

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:d0lq61t7esc57rlq2o2p4ja2onr36p6nlb@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:01:16 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:r03o61dnc295t7oojk613gkniqmmcli022@4ax.com...

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:25:44 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:hn0m6116mut6ntpoj7r3i1nle0k4uckns4@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:02:19 -0700, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:

DianaC wrote:

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:acudna6Pv5Bk5vTfRVn-oA@comcast.com...

Tukla Ratte wrote:

[]

Saying that condoms don't help is like saying that seatbelts don't
help
when you're drinking and driving. Sure, it'll protect you in an
accident,
but it won't stop the car from being smashed into a tree.

So, what? Do we just stop using seatbelts, then, because it doesn't
fix
the problem?

So use condoms....but frankly, they are a little like equipping cars
with
airbags....and forgetting the brakes.

Yes. You need multiple sources of protection. Remove one and you're
in
a world of trouble.

Condoms + Education + Supervision + Raising Your Kids + Not allowing
televison to Raise Them = Moral and Healthy Child.

(Note: "Religion" is not in the above equation. You don't need
religion to be moral and healthy.)

All too often religion brings the opposite.

the same can be said for systems that do not recognize deity.

You do love your nonsequitors.

The problem lies, not in the religion/system, but in those who profess
to
believe in
them, but don't behave as if they do.

Now you're being disingenous. /cue Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph to name
two.

OK, who the flip are Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph?

Paul Hill-Christian who murdered a doctor
Eric Rudolph-Christian who bombed medical centres and the Atlanta
Olympics.

And did the belief systems they profess to follow advocate murdering and
bombing places?
Does Christianity recommend the bombing of places and the murdering of
doctors? You see anywhere in the NT where this was advocated?
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	30 Apr 2005 06:33:06 PM

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Does Christianity recommend the bombing of places and the murdering of
doctors? You see anywhere in the NT where this was advocated?

Does Revelation count?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	30 Apr 2005 07:34:22 PM

"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:nc58715b24ijdjmgin45pqbsno3rflpts6@4ax.com...

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Does Christianity recommend the bombing of places and the murdering of
doctors? You see anywhere in the NT where this was advocated?

Does Revelation count?

What chapter and verse in Revelation says 'go thou and burn abortion clinics
and kill doctors'?
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	30 Apr 2005 09:24:48 PM

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Does Christianity recommend the bombing of places and the murdering of
doctors? You see anywhere in the NT where this was advocated?

Does Revelation count?

What chapter and verse in Revelation says 'go thou and burn abortion clinics
and kill doctors'?

It supports the idea of Jesus killing anybody who doesn't join his
cult, be it the mormon version of Christianity or the Catholic one or
the Protestant one, and maybe even killing Jews who refuse to accept
Jesus as the Jewish messiah.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	01 May 2005 02:20:52 PM

"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:n9f871lhkl4li1fm9de211ii4dleequocp@4ax.com...

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Does Christianity recommend the bombing of places and the murdering of
doctors? You see anywhere in the NT where this was advocated?

Does Revelation count?

What chapter and verse in Revelation says 'go thou and burn abortion
clinics
and kill doctors'?

WHERE????
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	02 May 2005 07:19:22 AM

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Does Christianity recommend the bombing of places and the murdering of
doctors? You see anywhere in the NT where this was advocated?

Does Revelation count?

What chapter and verse in Revelation says 'go thou and burn abortion
clinics and kill doctors'?

WHERE????

Have you not actually read all of it?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	02 May 2005 08:50:40 AM

"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:ji6c71ppa3n9mvk673fcqhjhjhg2bcjkvv@4ax.com...

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Does Christianity recommend the bombing of places and the murdering
of
doctors? You see anywhere in the NT where this was advocated?

Does Revelation count?

What chapter and verse in Revelation says 'go thou and burn abortion
clinics and kill doctors'?

WHERE????

Have you not actually read all of it?

I have, yes. However, my interpretation of it doesn't quite march, I think,
with yours. After all, I read things like Rev.3:19-20. and ch.4:8-9, and see
that it is those who believe who will do the suffering, not those who don't.
Mind you, yes, there is chapter nine, in which SATAN (or whatever power was
unloosed) is allowed to wreck havoc on anybody who does not 'have the mark
of God on their foreheads'....but I guess s WHOLE bunch of people have that
'mark' who don't belong to the 'right' religion, or are even particularly
good, because later in the chapter we read of those who saw all the death
and destruction and don't repent even then of murder, robbery and rape...
Ah. Here it is. Are you refering to chapter 16?
The thing is, in none of these scriptures does it mention that Jesus is
'killing anybody who doesn't join his cult'. No place. Even though the
language of Revelation is violent in places, in NO place does it mention
that everybody but (insert belief system here) is a target. Indeed, pretty
much everybody is a target, period. ;-) By somebody or other.
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	02 May 2005 02:39:51 PM

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message

WHERE????

Have you not actually read all of it?

Chapter 14 is what I was thinking of.
Rev 14:10-11
"He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy
angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever
and ever."
Of course, that's only for people who get some certain mark on their
foreheads or hands...
I figure I'm safe since I never plan on getting mark on my forehead or
hands.
You, on the other hand, are out of luck, since only 144,000 men who
get the name of Jeebus and his father tattooed on their foreheads,
according to the first part of the above chapter, will be up on mount
Zion singing praises to their god.
Boy oh boy, what a load of horse ***** that whole book is. I skimmed
through some parts of it just now while looking for the chapter I was
thinking of, and I think anybody who takes any of it seriously should
be committed to a mental institution.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	02 May 2005 04:00:55 PM

"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:lqvc71lcdq3n8p70v0a42j4c7bgqeeups3@4ax.com...

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message

WHERE????

Have you not actually read all of it?

Ah. Here it is. Are you refering to chapter 16?

The thing is, in none of these scriptures does it mention that Jesus is
'killing anybody who doesn't join his cult'. No place. Even though the
language of Revelation is violent in places, in NO place does it mention
that everybody but (insert belief system here) is a target. Indeed,
pretty
much everybody is a target, period. ;-) By somebody or other.

Chapter 14 is what I was thinking of.

Rev 14:10-11
"He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy
angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever
and ever."

Of course, that's only for people who get some certain mark on their
foreheads or hands...

I figure I'm safe since I never plan on getting mark on my forehead or
hands.

You, on the other hand, are out of luck, since only 144,000 men who
get the name of Jeebus and his father tattooed on their foreheads,
according to the first part of the above chapter, will be up on mount
Zion singing praises to their god.

Boy oh boy, what a load of horse ***** that whole book is. I skimmed
through some parts of it just now while looking for the chapter I was
thinking of, and I think anybody who takes any of it seriously should
be committed to a mental institution.

What it IS is a Delphic oracle. That is, a recording of prophecy/dreams by
someone who didn't really have a clue what he was looking at, and didn't
have the words to adequately describe it if he did, but who, nevertheless,
did the best he could.
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	02 May 2005 06:24:02 PM

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message

<snip>

Boy oh boy, what a load of horse ***** that whole book is. I skimmed
through some parts of it just now while looking for the chapter I was
thinking of, and I think anybody who takes any of it seriously should
be committed to a mental institution.

The Oracle of Delphi temple was perched over some type of natural gas
outlet, which caused people to hallucinate bigtime when they went
around it, in case you didn't know...
If you don't believe me, do some basic research about it and judge for
yourself.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	02 May 2005 10:11:21 PM

"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:5edd71tb5e4n0nn8cvns0986bcpp7d496b@4ax.com...

DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message

<snip>

What it IS is a Delphic oracle. That is, a recording of prophecy/dreams
by
someone who didn't really have a clue what he was looking at, and didn't
have the words to adequately describe it if he did, but who,
nevertheless,
did the best he could.

The Oracle of Delphi temple was perched over some type of natural gas
outlet, which caused people to hallucinate bigtime when they went
around it, in case you didn't know...

Yes. I know.

If you don't believe me, do some basic research about it and judge for
yourself.

--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com

User: "DanielSan"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	25 Apr 2005 05:51:46 PM

DianaC wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:d0lq61t7esc57rlq2o2p4ja2onr36p6nlb@4ax.com...

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:01:16 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:r03o61dnc295t7oojk613gkniqmmcli022@4ax.com...

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:25:44 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:hn0m6116mut6ntpoj7r3i1nle0k4uckns4@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:02:19 -0700, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:

DianaC wrote:

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:acudna6Pv5Bk5vTfRVn-oA@comcast.com...

Tukla Ratte wrote:

[]

Saying that condoms don't help is like saying that seatbelts don't
help
when you're drinking and driving. Sure, it'll protect you in an
accident,
but it won't stop the car from being smashed into a tree.

So, what? Do we just stop using seatbelts, then, because it doesn't
fix
the problem?

So use condoms....but frankly, they are a little like equipping cars
with
airbags....and forgetting the brakes.

Yes. You need multiple sources of protection. Remove one and you're
in
a world of trouble.

Condoms + Education + Supervision + Raising Your Kids + Not allowing
televison to Raise Them = Moral and Healthy Child.

(Note: "Religion" is not in the above equation. You don't need
religion to be moral and healthy.)

All too often religion brings the opposite.

the same can be said for systems that do not recognize deity.

You do love your nonsequitors.

The problem lies, not in the religion/system, but in those who profess
to
believe in
them, but don't behave as if they do.

Now you're being disingenous. /cue Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph to name
two.

OK, who the flip are Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph?

Paul Hill-Christian who murdered a doctor
Eric Rudolph-Christian who bombed medical centres and the Atlanta
Olympics.

And did the belief systems they profess to follow advocate murdering and
bombing places?

Does Christianity recommend the bombing of places and the murdering of
doctors? You see anywhere in the NT where this was advocated?

No, but they say that the reason they're doing this is to fulfill God's
wishes. We do not have a problem with Christianity. We have a problem
with Christians who twist the Bible to suit their agenda.
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: *Re: But i'm* the bad person**	25 Apr 2005 07:17:56 PM

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:WIOdnZIIhpP36fDfRVn-tA@comcast.com...

DianaC wrote:

Does Christianity recommend the bombing of places and the murdering of
doctors? You see anywhere in the NT where this was advocated?

No, but they say that the reason they're doing this is to fulfill God's
wishes.

As interpreted by whom?

We do not have a problem with Christianity. We have a problem with
Christians who twist the Bible to suit their agenda.

Oh, well, y'can't argue with that. ;-)
You have to admit that getting permission to bomb places and murder people
from the New Testament takes one WHALE of a lot of twisting.
.

Page 1 of 10

Post reply

Run all you like E F Berg (aka "LC" ) but you still haven't answered the question: Who was the person that posted as "Loose Cannon" in 2002-2003 that buddies-up to the likes of Patrick Lee Humphrey and Ray Fischer, et all, and chastised "Osprey"? Who
Tricks, but no treat
Surprise! The Legion of GOP Chickenhawks. Once Again Showing How GOP traitors Can Talk The Talk But Can't Walk The Walk (Re: Liberal DemocRAT Socialists are wimps & cowards!!!!)
I can't help but laugh at Ashcroft
OT: G.O.P. Centrists to Speak at Convention, but Will They Be Heard?
OK Firm To Lay Off 30. Thank You Bush! (But Frist, Did we Mention That We Turned The Corner)
Kerry quits, but still not a "blowout".
OT: Yes, you must pull out - but also pay for the damage

OT: Be afraid, perhaps. But very afraid? No
I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason some
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
OT: Plamegate may seem arcane, but we all have a stake in the outcome
Inside the First Amendment - Alito Is Religion-Friendly, But How Far Will He Go?
I'm an atheist, but I still do the Xmas thing.
"Troops, Ah'm Sorry, But Mah Tax Cuts Come B'fore Yer Safety" - Our "Elected" Chimp

Topics

Bible