| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Carl Sagans billions" |
| Date: |
31 Dec 2007 12:48:54 PM |
| Object: |
Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
I struggled for a long time in my younger years trying to
understand the basic doctrines, the core beliefs, the philosophies,
the essence and contradictions in Old versus New Testament, the
behavior of warrior Christian nations wreaking havoc in non-Christian
colonies (and still conducting horrible bombing wars on non-Christian
people in Asia), Genesis, Noah, the many other stories in the Bible,
etc..
Then slowly I came to understand several truths described below,
which eventually enabled me to gradually throw off the yoke,
the shackles and the blinders of a long childhood indoctrination in
Christianity, and I WAS FREE ----- FOREVER:
1. All religions and gods are 'man' made, made and made up
by humans, not necessarily to deceive but as a result of new
ideas and concepts that evolved and were then accepted as
the (new) truth, the (new) philosophy of life, the (new) gospel,
the (new) 'true' religion.
2. The Christian concept and definition of a 'soul' is untenable.
Why? Evolution is a fact but nowhere in the long line of evolution
was the 'soul' (or something like the soul that makes us immortal)
suddenly inserted in a certain species at a discrete point in time.
If I assume that the soul was suddenly inserted in a living
being, e.g., 1 million years ago, we must then argue that his
or her father and mother did not have a soul. We cannot.
This means:
All living beings have a soul or no living beings have a soul. As I
don't believe a worm has a soul, I must conclude that the concept
of a soul in each human being can only be a manmade construct.
A manmade construct because we have a need to believe that
we (or at least our 'spirit' or our 'soul') are immortal and will
exist forever.
We fear death; we fear being gone forever.
We want to deny death; we need to believe we are immortal.
And we can't avoid fabricating a reason for our existence.
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are manmade. They were created
when social groups evolved culturally: To keep individual behavior
in line and within boundaries - to be beneficial to the group or to
its leaders. Heaven was a carrot, hell was the stick.
then
4. The Christian dogma of sin, with human beings having free choice
to obey or disobey, is untenable, as 'sin', killing, fighting, etc.,
already existed millions of years before human beings came about.
That means in the long line of evolution there was never a discrete
point where the 'first' human being suddenly had free choice to obey
or disobey. That also means the dogma of Christ's death at the cross
to atone for our sins is untenable. Human beings evolved and never
(suddenly) had free choice to obey or dis-obey (=sin).
The manmade Christian God sacrificed his son to atone for all
sins for all people forever for all times. That clever idea of hope
and
total redemption and forgiveness by the almighty ruler arose from
much older pagan religions that had human sacrifices at their core:
The ultimate sacrifice for redemption was to give up and offer
your own son (example in the Abraham-Isaac story). That's why
'man' eventually came up with the idea that Christ - the Son - was
sacrificed by the Father and died for the sins of all mankind.
This was a brilliant and total expansion of the original idea
behind human sacrifices to gods. Not only did the all-powerful
God gave part of himself (the Son) as the sacrifice, this
sacrifice was so big, so ALL encompassing that it forgave
ALL sins of ALL human beings for ALL times.
As our species Homo Sapiens evolved over millions of years, there was
never an Adam and Eve 6000 years ago. That means Eve disobeying
God and eating from the fruit never happened. That means the 'fall'
in the garden of Eden never happened. That also means a 'fall' e.g.
a million years earlier never happened. That means the philosophy
of Christ having to die for our original sin, for us disobeying God,
has no basis in fact. Our ancestors millions of years ago did
not have the intellectual capacity nor the choice to obey or disobey.
5. The Christian concept that you can only be saved by accepting
Christ as your savior is untenable. As over 4.5 billion on earth are
not Christians and may not even know about Jesus Christ,
it is illogical to assume that God automatically condemns
4.5 billion out of 6.5 billion to hell = eternal suffering.
Also there are over 100-200 billion stars in our own galaxy,
with a total of 100-200 billion other galaxies in the visible
universe, containing many billions of inhabited planets. It is
illogical
to assume that God sacrificed his son on billions of planets.
6. All religions are manmade, which explains the huge variety of
religions. Any evolving human society develops beliefs about life
and death, which then often morph into absolute beliefs and then
finally into structured beliefs = religion.
That's why there are so many religions, so many spin-offs of existing
religions, and why so many new spin-offs and denominations are
created all the time, all over the world. There are always new
thinkers with new ideas, creative thinkers who strongly reject the
older ideas.
7. All religions and their spin-offs are manmade, and the concept of
'God' including the 'God' of Christianity, Islam and Judaism is man
made.
As nowhere in the material world we see physical acts/actions by
a 'God' on matter, there is no reason to assume that an 'immaterial'
God like the Christian God (who controls, guards, acts on matter
= interferes in our world) exists.
8. So we have to face the fact, with courage and logic, and conclude
that: GOD IS ABSENT, IS DEAD OR DOES NOT EXIST.
As I find it illogical that if an all powerful God existed, he would
decide to disappear from our material world = universe into some
other universe, or even die, i.e., disappear from all possible
universes, there is only one conclusion left:
There is no immaterial God applying material forces on or into
our physical environment.
That means all physical and chemical occurrences can be
explained (sooner or later) without having to introduce a
supernatural and 'immaterial' being capable of and actively
acting on matter. Therefore the conclusion is that (the Christian)
God does not exist and was made up.
You can only exist if you are matter or tied to matter.
You only exist if you can act upon matter. When tied to matter,
'one' can be observed, measured, etc., and thus be proven to exist.
Example:
In the 2004 tsunami near Sumatra up to 100,000 innocent children
were killed in just one hour (in total an estimated 220,000 died).
'God' did not do it.
'Satan' did not do it.
Humans did not do it.
The earth core is cooling, forcing huge plates to move,
which occasionally rupture or fracture into earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, etc., which then can cause terrible
natural catastrophes such as this tsunami.
Nowhere did or does the 'hand of God' act anywhere.
He did not cause it, and he did not prevent it.
9. The mystery of matter and the most crucial question and
profound mystery of all
--- 'WHY WE (made of matter) EXIST' ----
does not mean we have to assume an all powerful being like the
Christian God who creates, controls, acts on matter,
and rules and monitors everything.
In the last 1000 years more and more mysteries have been explained.
In the coming thousands of years many more mysteries will be
resolved. That means religious beliefs get pushed back more and
more, away from the current simple absolute religious 'truths'
and beliefs as described in 'holy' books. Religions always consist
of a mixture of man made philosophies, myths, theories, taboos,
legends, laws, rules, remnants of pagan religions, etc.,
explanations from hundreds of years or even much longer ago,
and are being pushed back or voided by science and much
more rational explanations.
That also means a religion such as Christianity can only survive if
it develops a much better explanation and rationale for the mystery
of matter and life, and for our existence. However Christianity
cannot 're-engineer' itself. It cannot offer a science-based
explanation of life, or even reform itself into a more rational
philosophy of life.
So it will remain an anti-scientific belief system based on fixed
explanations for life and death, made by men and women
who lived hundreds and even thousands of years ago.
The contradiction between what we learn from science and the
fixed explanations from hundreds and thousands of years ago
will grow. Christianity and other similar religions likely will
slowly disappear. The psychological human need for spirituality
will not disappear, but the dogmas and beliefs of religions such
as Christianity, Islam and Judaism will become less and less
acceptable to more and more people.
10. The core issue is a direct conflict between:
o the religious/emotional/non-scientific approach or persona and
o the scientific/rational approach or persona
Spirituality will stay in various forms, but dogmatic religions based
on ancient and fixed beliefs will slowly disappear or remain with
smaller and smaller groups of the uneducated or the un-enlightened
or the desperate or the frightened or the indoctrinated.
There may be long religious revivals and reactions but
on longer terms science and associated education
will (albeit slowly) void ancient belief systems.
However, religions can very well hang on for a long time,
even when becoming unsatisfactory to many more people, e.g. if
and when there are no other enticing spiritual/social frameworks
as substitutes or replacements. For scientists that could well be
science and the wonders, the size and the unbelievable beauty
and complexity of the physical universe.
But the masses are poorly educated and never get enthralled
by nature or by scientific exploration and thought. They do
get enthralled by food, drink, sex, entertainment and the
accumulation of material possessions:
The absence or substitute for or even opposite of spirituality.
The basic science-religion conflict is also why so many religions,
including Christianity and Islam, in their core must stay so anti-
science. They can never embrace a much more rational belief
system that so clearly exposes the phallacies in their inherited
belief system.
============================================
Why is rejecting Christianity in my opinion a step forward?
Instead of believing in fixed philosophies, laws and taboos
created by men and women many hundreds and even thousands
of years ago, who did not know any better (not their fault),
it is much better to determine our own beliefs and truths.
That will enable us to leave behind outdated laws, fears,
prejudices, misconceptions, racism, intolerance,
supremacy feelings, and ancient ideas about death,
heaven, hell, sin, soul, etc.
That freedom will jettison all the religious garbage that is
a constant obstructionist obstacle to a better, more rational
and more humane world.
Rationality does not ENSURE more humanity, but in my
opinion it is a more promising path than non-rationality
including religions such as Christianity.
Rationality combined with humanism may guide us
to a better world of fairness, justice, peace and
rational problem solving.
Do I think this is feasible? Not really: Power, greed, racism,
and power politics are superstrong human and societal forces
(for injustice, wars, killing, irrationality, waste, destruction,
hate,
intolerance, etc.). But it shows the direction of hope and we can
then analyze that direction rationally and plan a path to try to
channel, restrict or even partially control the beast.
Michael M. Terra - Carl Sagan's Billions and Billions
.
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
01 Jan 2008 05:17:12 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 11:43:05 -0800, DanielSan
<petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote:
Except that it doesn't make sense. Where did your god come from?
I have no idea. You tell me where the universe came from. It didn't
exist 13.5 billion years ago.
The age of the universe is between 13.5 and 13.9 billion years old.
Yep, more or less.
Therefore, there was no 14billion years ago. It does not exist.
Oh, and by the way, can you show me where Christianity was 7,000 years ago?
Yep, waiting for the Messiah to arrive.
Uh huh.
Saying that he has always existed is a cop-out (and also doesn't make
any sense). Furthermore, it is possible to make perfect sense of of
universe with no god.
Yet there was no universe. An infinitely small point of mass of
infinite density appear out of nothingness.
Prove it. Prove it appeared "out of nothingness".
That's what the scientists say.
Who says that?
And remember, it didn't appear in the
void. There was no void, no outer space. Outer space was part of the
point of mass.
Right.
It exploded outward to
form all mass, energy, and outer space. So you explain it.
Sounds like someone doesn't know the Big Bang Theory.
Yep, you don't.
Unsupported assertion.
This comes from God. The eternal salvation of the soul has always
been a belief of mankind going back to the beginnings of time.
Show evidence that there is such a thing as a soul.
Ok. All mankind acts like mankind and never like a dog.
That's not evidence of a soul.
Yes it is. It's the standard animation of the human being.
That's a conclusion, not evidence.
Also, the idea of a soul that is separate from the body only goes back
as far as the ancient Greeks (who first came up with the idea)
You're joking. The Greeks learned from God.
You must be joking.
No. God goes back 13.5 billion years, min. The Greeks only came
around a few thousand years ago.
Right, that's why they believed in gods (plural).
Tell me why a man will never be a dog and a tiger will never be an
insect and I'll explain animation to you
If you are talking about one specific human, rather than the entire
human species, then it's because of DNA.
I'm talking all humankind.
Err, we're the same species...?
You may be an insect, but not me.
All of humankind is the same species.
Dogs will never be cats.
Right, if dogs have souls, they are dog souls. A dog will never have
a cat soul.
Still, no evidence of a "soul" at all.
The domain name alone gives me no desire to go to that link.
You're afraid of the best source for the truth.
I went to the link. Nothing but philosophical *****.
Can you prove you were born and not hatched?
Yes. Consensus data contemporary to my birth proves it.
If there ever were any witnesses, they were likely dead, or at least
senile, by the time the story was first written down.
"Likely" is wrong. The gospels are a compilation of the events,
statements and religious beliefs of the biblical people. A famous
statement does not have to be recorded on a cd to be a famous
statement, and such is the eye witness accounts, and in place
religious beliefs and practices of the new Christians.
You keep saying "eyewitness accounts" but you never back that up.
It's in scripture - those writings that compile the events, writings
and religious beliefs of the early Christian people.
Sorry, but those "eyewitness accounts" in the Bible were all post
"second" death and of the urban-legend type: "My friend's friend's
father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate said that he heard
from a guy that it happened."
Because evolution has been pretty much proven, which invalidates the
whole idea of a 'first man and woman'.
But not of "every man and woman" born with the propensity to commit
evil. We know that factually as evident in every infant and new born
to demand "self first" without recourse or forethought and proceeds
forth until a much older age when "the needs of others can be
considered".
Non-sequitur.
Swoosh - right over your head.
Evolution is not "good" or "evil"... so your bringing that up is the
non-sequitur.
How do you know that none of the other thousands of
religions that have ever been practiced throughout history aren't the
'True Religion'?
My guy walked out of his tomb after being dead for 3 days.
Prove it. Give me the eyewitness accounts.
Their observations are compiled in scripture.
Not hardly.
How do you know that god has ever said anything to
humans? What if deism is true?
Same answer.
What if your god is the wrong god? What if you're ignoring the One True
God by worshiping the Christian god?
Mine was the only one to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3
days.
So? That doesn't prove it's the right god.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
03 Jan 2008 05:32:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:17:12 -0800, DanielSan
<petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote:
Except that it doesn't make sense. Where did your god come from?
I have no idea. You tell me where the universe came from. It didn't
exist 13.5 billion years ago.
The age of the universe is between 13.5 and 13.9 billion years old.
Yep, more or less.
Therefore, there was no 14billion years ago. It does not exist.
Well, just drop back to the very beginnings.
Oh, and by the way, can you show me where Christianity was 7,000 years ago?
Yep, waiting for the Messiah to arrive.
Uh huh.
Finally, you understand.
Yet there was no universe. An infinitely small point of mass of
infinite density appear out of nothingness.
Prove it. Prove it appeared "out of nothingness".
That's what the scientists say.
Who says that?
Scientists.
And remember, it didn't appear in the
void. There was no void, no outer space. Outer space was part of the
point of mass.
Right.
Wow, you're really starting to fill out.
It exploded outward to
form all mass, energy, and outer space. So you explain it.
Sounds like someone doesn't know the Big Bang Theory.
Yep, you don't.
Unsupported assertion.
I go with the scientists.
This comes from God. The eternal salvation of the soul has always
been a belief of mankind going back to the beginnings of time.
Show evidence that there is such a thing as a soul.
Ok. All mankind acts like mankind and never like a dog.
That's not evidence of a soul.
Yes it is. It's the standard animation of the human being.
That's a conclusion, not evidence.
I go with the experts.
Also, the idea of a soul that is separate from the body only goes back
as far as the ancient Greeks (who first came up with the idea)
You're joking. The Greeks learned from God.
You must be joking.
No. God goes back 13.5 billion years, min. The Greeks only came
around a few thousand years ago.
Right, that's why they believed in gods (plural).
Belief, and factual, are two different things. No one has ever found
evidence of zeus.
Tell me why a man will never be a dog and a tiger will never be an
insect and I'll explain animation to you
If you are talking about one specific human, rather than the entire
human species, then it's because of DNA.
I'm talking all humankind.
Err, we're the same species...?
You may be an insect, but not me.
All of humankind is the same species.
Yep, a human soul.
Dogs will never be cats.
Right, if dogs have souls, they are dog souls. A dog will never have
a cat soul.
Still, no evidence of a "soul" at all.
Hey, a cat will always be a cat, and never a dog. Go argue with
yourself.
The domain name alone gives me no desire to go to that link.
You're afraid of the best source for the truth.
I went to the link. Nothing but philosophical *****.
Can you prove you were born and not hatched?
Yes. Consensus data contemporary to my birth proves it.
Where's this evidence?
It's in scripture - those writings that compile the events, writings
and religious beliefs of the early Christian people.
Sorry, but those "eyewitness accounts" in the Bible were all post
"second" death and of the urban-legend type: "My friend's friend's
father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate said that he heard
from a guy that it happened."
Does it make it false?
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
03 Jan 2008 09:44:30 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:17:12 -0800, DanielSan
<petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote:
Except that it doesn't make sense. Where did your god come from?
I have no idea. You tell me where the universe came from. It didn't
exist 13.5 billion years ago.
The age of the universe is between 13.5 and 13.9 billion years old.
Yep, more or less.
Therefore, there was no 14billion years ago. It does not exist.
Well, just drop back to the very beginnings.
Fine. An infinitesimal dot of massive density and temperature. So what?
Oh, and by the way, can you show me where Christianity was 7,000 years ago?
Yep, waiting for the Messiah to arrive.
Uh huh.
Finally, you understand.
Sarcasm, she is lost on you.
Yet there was no universe. An infinitely small point of mass of
infinite density appear out of nothingness.
Prove it. Prove it appeared "out of nothingness".
That's what the scientists say.
Who says that?
Scientists.
No, WHO says it? Names. Dates. Quotes. That sort of thing.
And remember, it didn't appear in the
void. There was no void, no outer space. Outer space was part of the
point of mass.
Right.
Wow, you're really starting to fill out.
??
It exploded outward to
form all mass, energy, and outer space. So you explain it.
Sounds like someone doesn't know the Big Bang Theory.
Yep, you don't.
Unsupported assertion.
I go with the scientists.
Fine. Let me know what the scientists said and who said it and when.
This comes from God. The eternal salvation of the soul has always
been a belief of mankind going back to the beginnings of time.
Show evidence that there is such a thing as a soul.
Ok. All mankind acts like mankind and never like a dog.
That's not evidence of a soul.
Yes it is. It's the standard animation of the human being.
That's a conclusion, not evidence.
I go with the experts.
Name them.
Also, the idea of a soul that is separate from the body only goes back
as far as the ancient Greeks (who first came up with the idea)
You're joking. The Greeks learned from God.
You must be joking.
No. God goes back 13.5 billion years, min. The Greeks only came
around a few thousand years ago.
Right, that's why they believed in gods (plural).
Belief, and factual, are two different things. No one has ever found
evidence of zeus.
All evidence demands Zeus' existence.
Tell me why a man will never be a dog and a tiger will never be an
insect and I'll explain animation to you
If you are talking about one specific human, rather than the entire
human species, then it's because of DNA.
I'm talking all humankind.
Err, we're the same species...?
You may be an insect, but not me.
All of humankind is the same species.
Yep, a human soul.
Unsupported assertion.
Dogs will never be cats.
Right, if dogs have souls, they are dog souls. A dog will never have
a cat soul.
Still, no evidence of a "soul" at all.
Hey, a cat will always be a cat, and never a dog. Go argue with
yourself.
Still, no evidence of a "soul".
The domain name alone gives me no desire to go to that link.
You're afraid of the best source for the truth.
I went to the link. Nothing but philosophical *****.
Can you prove you were born and not hatched?
Yes. Consensus data contemporary to my birth proves it.
Where's this evidence?
In my closet. I do not need you to believe it, therefore, I will not
give it.
It's in scripture - those writings that compile the events, writings
and religious beliefs of the early Christian people.
Sorry, but those "eyewitness accounts" in the Bible were all post
"second" death and of the urban-legend type: "My friend's friend's
father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate said that he heard
from a guy that it happened."
Does it make it false?
My, you are the obtuse one.
Look, get back to me when you have the real names and dates for anything
if you want me to believe your assertions are true.
Thanks!
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
04 Jan 2008 03:14:57 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
duke wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:17:12 -0800, DanielSan
<petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote:
Except that it doesn't make sense. Where did your god come from?
I have no idea. You tell me where the universe came from. It didn't
exist 13.5 billion years ago.
The age of the universe is between 13.5 and 13.9 billion years old.
Yep, more or less.
Therefore, there was no 14billion years ago. It does not exist.
Well, just drop back to the very beginnings.
Fine. An infinitesimal dot of massive density and temperature. So what?
Oh, and by the way, can you show me where Christianity was 7,000
years ago?
Yep, waiting for the Messiah to arrive.
Uh huh.
Finally, you understand.
Sarcasm, she is lost on you.
Yet there was no universe. An infinitely small point of mass of
infinite density appear out of nothingness.
Prove it. Prove it appeared "out of nothingness".
That's what the scientists say.
Who says that?
Scientists.
No, WHO says it? Names. Dates. Quotes. That sort of thing.
And remember, it didn't appear in the
void. There was no void, no outer space. Outer space was part of the
point of mass.
Right.
Wow, you're really starting to fill out.
??
It exploded outward to
form all mass, energy, and outer space. So you explain it.
Sounds like someone doesn't know the Big Bang Theory.
Yep, you don't.
Unsupported assertion.
I go with the scientists.
Fine. Let me know what the scientists said and who said it and when.
This comes from God. The eternal salvation of the soul has always
been a belief of mankind going back to the beginnings of time.
Show evidence that there is such a thing as a soul.
Ok. All mankind acts like mankind and never like a dog.
That's not evidence of a soul.
Yes it is. It's the standard animation of the human being.
That's a conclusion, not evidence.
I go with the experts.
Name them.
Also, the idea of a soul that is separate from the body only goes
back
as far as the ancient Greeks (who first came up with the idea)
You're joking. The Greeks learned from God.
You must be joking.
No. God goes back 13.5 billion years, min. The Greeks only came
around a few thousand years ago.
Right, that's why they believed in gods (plural).
Belief, and factual, are two different things. No one has ever found
evidence of zeus.
All evidence demands Zeus' existence.
Tell me why a man will never be a dog and a tiger will never be an
insect and I'll explain animation to you
If you are talking about one specific human, rather than the entire
human species, then it's because of DNA.
I'm talking all humankind.
Err, we're the same species...?
You may be an insect, but not me.
All of humankind is the same species.
Yep, a human soul.
Unsupported assertion.
Dogs will never be cats.
Right, if dogs have souls, they are dog souls. A dog will never have
a cat soul.
Still, no evidence of a "soul" at all.
Hey, a cat will always be a cat, and never a dog. Go argue with
yourself.
Still, no evidence of a "soul".
The domain name alone gives me no desire to go to that link.
You're afraid of the best source for the truth.
I went to the link. Nothing but philosophical *****.
Can you prove you were born and not hatched?
Yes. Consensus data contemporary to my birth proves it.
Where's this evidence?
In my closet. I do not need you to believe it, therefore, I will not
give it.
It's in scripture - those writings that compile the events, writings
and religious beliefs of the early Christian people.
Sorry, but those "eyewitness accounts" in the Bible were all post
"second" death and of the urban-legend type: "My friend's friend's
father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate said that he
heard from a guy that it happened."
Does it make it false?
My, you are the obtuse one.
Look, get back to me when you have the real names and dates for anything
if you want me to believe your assertions are true.
Thanks!
let see, the universe is 13.75 billion years the first 300,000 years
was as a plasma fireball of nuclear effects. it did not explode, but it
did catch fire.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, only on differt subjects"
Will Rogers
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
04 Jan 2008 04:50:50 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:14:57 -0600, josephus <dogbird@earthlink.net>
wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
:
My, you are the obtuse one.
Look, get back to me when you have the real names and dates for anything
if you want me to believe your assertions are true.
Thanks!
let see, the universe is 13.75 billion years the first 300,000 years
was as a plasma fireball of nuclear effects. it did not explode, but it
did catch fire.
What *are* you smoking?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JohnN" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
31 Dec 2007 09:33:12 PM |
|
|
On Dec 31, 2:32=A0pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:48:54 -0800 (PST), "Carl Sagan's billions"
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are manmade.
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
JohnN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Bowditch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
31 Dec 2007 09:53:53 PM |
|
|
JohnN <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:32 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:48:54 -0800 (PST), "Carl Sagan's billions"
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are manmade.
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
JohnN
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
01 Jan 2008 08:09:58 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:53:53 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
JohnN <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:32 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:48:54 -0800 (PST), "Carl Sagan's billions"
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are manmade.
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
Worst yet are those that read it and reject.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
05 Jan 2008 08:52:07 AM |
|
|
On 1 jan, 15:09, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:53:53 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:32=A0pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:48:54 -0800 (PST), "Carl Sagan's billions"
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are manmade.
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says=
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
Worst yet are those that read it and reject.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
As Peter Bowditch has already shown you, you are wrong as usual.
You think you have found a pretty way of saying "Jesus Christ"
However althought the gospel claims Jesus has risen from the grave, it
never ever anywhere states he walked out! (Actually - if I remember
correctly - Mary Magdalene saw him standing there, she didn't see him
walk.)
It was claimed the grave was empy on the third day (so he could only
have been dead for two days). But actually nobody checked the grave on
saturday. Indeed nobody checked after 6 pm on friday. So it could have
been only a few hours
Then again, as the gospels are giving different sometimes
contradicting accounts,
they may not be reliable evidence.
Moreover I do not think he actually said all this was wrong:
"There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
concepts of heaven and hell are manmade."
You have no evidence that he really thought heaven (apart from the
sky) or hell (apart from the magma insided the earth) existed. And
certainly we have no account of him speaking about the possibilty that
these concepts are manmade!
I do not say you are lying
I say you are confabulating.
You should try and refrain of expressing your own views as if they
were the views of Jesus. It isn't true!
Peter van Velzen
January 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Bowditch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
01 Jan 2008 04:36:24 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:53:53 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
JohnN <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:32 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:48:54 -0800 (PST), "Carl Sagan's billions"
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are manmade.
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
Worst yet are those that read it and reject.
You said "The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3
days says you're wrong". Who was this man? Please don't say Jesus,
because Jesus died on Friday and was resurrected sometime before dawn
on Sunday. That's not "3 days". And it's not Lazarus either, because
"he had lain in the grave four days already" before Jesus arrived at
his tomb.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
01 Jan 2008 05:01:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:36:24 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
Worst yet are those that read it and reject.
You said "The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3
days says you're wrong". Who was this man? Please don't say Jesus,
because Jesus died on Friday and was resurrected sometime before dawn
on Sunday. That's not "3 days".
Scripture doesn't say 3-24 hour days, but on the 3rd day. See Luke.
Friday 3pm to 6pm - 1st day. Friday 6pm to Saturday 6pm (the sabbath)
- 2nd day. Saturday 6pm to Sunday (time unknown) - 3rd day.
And it's not Lazarus either, because
"he had lain in the grave four days already" before Jesus arrived at
his tomb.
Now you know it truly is Jesus.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "JohnN" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
02 Jan 2008 07:38:31 PM |
|
|
On Jan 1, 6:01=A0pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:36:24 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days sa=
ys
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
Worst yet are those that read it and reject.
You said "The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3
days says you're wrong". Who was this man? Please don't say Jesus,
because Jesus died on Friday and was resurrected sometime before dawn
on Sunday. That's not "3 days".
Scripture doesn't say 3-24 hour days, but on the 3rd day. =A0See Luke.
Friday 3pm to 6pm - 1st day. =A0Friday 6pm to Saturday 6pm (the sabbath)
- 2nd day. =A0Saturday 6pm to Sunday (time unknown) - 3rd day.
And it's not Lazarus either, because
"he had lain in the grave four days already" before Jesus arrived at
his tomb.
Now you know it truly is Jesus.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Excuse me, but I was not reading the days part. I read the walking
out part. Lazarus walked out of his tomb. No one knows how Jesus
left Joseph's tomb.
JohnN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
02 Jan 2008 08:04:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:38:31 -0800 (PST), JohnN <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 1, 6:01 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:36:24 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
Worst yet are those that read it and reject.
You said "The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3
days says you're wrong". Who was this man? Please don't say Jesus,
because Jesus died on Friday and was resurrected sometime before dawn
on Sunday. That's not "3 days".
Scripture doesn't say 3-24 hour days, but on the 3rd day. See Luke.
Friday 3pm to 6pm - 1st day. Friday 6pm to Saturday 6pm (the sabbath)
- 2nd day. Saturday 6pm to Sunday (time unknown) - 3rd day.
And it's not Lazarus either, because
"he had lain in the grave four days already" before Jesus arrived at
his tomb.
Now you know it truly is Jesus.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Excuse me, but I was not reading the days part. I read the walking
out part. Lazarus walked out of his tomb. No one knows how Jesus
left Joseph's tomb.
JohnN
A Segway?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Bowditch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
02 Jan 2008 04:48:52 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:36:24 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
Worst yet are those that read it and reject.
You said "The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3
days says you're wrong". Who was this man? Please don't say Jesus,
because Jesus died on Friday and was resurrected sometime before dawn
on Sunday. That's not "3 days".
Scripture doesn't say 3-24 hour days, but on the 3rd day. See Luke.
Friday 3pm to 6pm - 1st day. Friday 6pm to Saturday 6pm (the sabbath)
- 2nd day. Saturday 6pm to Sunday (time unknown) - 3rd day.
You said "3 days". 3pm Friday to 6pm Friday is not a day.
"On the third day" is not the same as "3 days".
So who was this person who was dead for 3 days?
And it's not Lazarus either, because
"he had lain in the grave four days already" before Jesus arrived at
his tomb.
Now you know it truly is Jesus.
How do I know that? Are you saying that the only possibilities are
Jesus and Lazarus and that because it isn't Lazarus it must be Jesus?
I have come across this abuse of logic before. It's the way
creationists lie about creationism. Oh, wait ...
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
02 Jan 2008 05:43:15 PM |
|
|
Peter Bowditch wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:36:24 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
Worst yet are those that read it and reject.
You said "The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3
days says you're wrong". Who was this man? Please don't say Jesus,
because Jesus died on Friday and was resurrected sometime before dawn
on Sunday. That's not "3 days".
Scripture doesn't say 3-24 hour days, but on the 3rd day. See Luke.
Friday 3pm to 6pm - 1st day. Friday 6pm to Saturday 6pm (the sabbath)
- 2nd day. Saturday 6pm to Sunday (time unknown) - 3rd day.
You said "3 days". 3pm Friday to 6pm Friday is not a day.
"On the third day" is not the same as "3 days".
So who was this person who was dead for 3 days?
And it's not Lazarus either, because
"he had lain in the grave four days already" before Jesus arrived at
his tomb.
Now you know it truly is Jesus.
How do I know that? Are you saying that the only possibilities are
Jesus and Lazarus and that because it isn't Lazarus it must be Jesus?
I have come across this abuse of logic before. It's the way
creationists lie about creationism. Oh, wait ...
It's called a false dichotomy. One of the more frequent logic errors on
these NGs, especially from rabid theists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
04 Jan 2008 04:56:09 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:43:15 GMT, cactus <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:36:24 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
Worst yet are those that read it and reject.
You said "The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3
days says you're wrong". Who was this man? Please don't say Jesus,
because Jesus died on Friday and was resurrected sometime before dawn
on Sunday. That's not "3 days".
Scripture doesn't say 3-24 hour days, but on the 3rd day. See Luke.
Friday 3pm to 6pm - 1st day. Friday 6pm to Saturday 6pm (the sabbath)
- 2nd day. Saturday 6pm to Sunday (time unknown) - 3rd day.
You said "3 days". 3pm Friday to 6pm Friday is not a day.
"On the third day" is not the same as "3 days".
So who was this person who was dead for 3 days?
And it's not Lazarus either, because
"he had lain in the grave four days already" before Jesus arrived at
his tomb.
Now you know it truly is Jesus.
How do I know that? Are you saying that the only possibilities are
Jesus and Lazarus and that because it isn't Lazarus it must be Jesus?
I have come across this abuse of logic before. It's the way
creationists lie about creationism. Oh, wait ...
It's called a false dichotomy. One of the more frequent logic errors on
these NGs, especially from rabid theists.
Mr. Bowditch is one of the most learned, public, uncompromising and
admirable Skeptics in Australia and, I can assure you, is viciously
familiar with every known logical fallacy, and its abuses.
(Especially in the area of medical frauds. And they are legion.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Bowditch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
04 Jan 2008 06:36:43 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:43:15 GMT, cactus <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:36:24 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
Worst yet are those that read it and reject.
You said "The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3
days says you're wrong". Who was this man? Please don't say Jesus,
because Jesus died on Friday and was resurrected sometime before dawn
on Sunday. That's not "3 days".
Scripture doesn't say 3-24 hour days, but on the 3rd day. See Luke.
Friday 3pm to 6pm - 1st day. Friday 6pm to Saturday 6pm (the sabbath)
- 2nd day. Saturday 6pm to Sunday (time unknown) - 3rd day.
You said "3 days". 3pm Friday to 6pm Friday is not a day.
"On the third day" is not the same as "3 days".
So who was this person who was dead for 3 days?
And it's not Lazarus either, because
"he had lain in the grave four days already" before Jesus arrived at
his tomb.
Now you know it truly is Jesus.
How do I know that? Are you saying that the only possibilities are
Jesus and Lazarus and that because it isn't Lazarus it must be Jesus?
I have come across this abuse of logic before. It's the way
creationists lie about creationism. Oh, wait ...
It's called a false dichotomy. One of the more frequent logic errors on
these NGs, especially from rabid theists.
Mr. Bowditch is one of the most learned, public, uncompromising and
admirable Skeptics in Australia and, I can assure you, is viciously
familiar with every known logical fallacy, and its abuses.
(Especially in the area of medical frauds. And they are legion.)
Stop it! That almost made me blush.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
05 Jan 2008 01:20:13 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:36:43 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:43:15 GMT, cactus <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:36:24 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
Worst yet are those that read it and reject.
You said "The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3
days says you're wrong". Who was this man? Please don't say Jesus,
because Jesus died on Friday and was resurrected sometime before dawn
on Sunday. That's not "3 days".
Scripture doesn't say 3-24 hour days, but on the 3rd day. See Luke.
Friday 3pm to 6pm - 1st day. Friday 6pm to Saturday 6pm (the sabbath)
- 2nd day. Saturday 6pm to Sunday (time unknown) - 3rd day.
You said "3 days". 3pm Friday to 6pm Friday is not a day.
"On the third day" is not the same as "3 days".
So who was this person who was dead for 3 days?
And it's not Lazarus either, because
"he had lain in the grave four days already" before Jesus arrived at
his tomb.
Now you know it truly is Jesus.
How do I know that? Are you saying that the only possibilities are
Jesus and Lazarus and that because it isn't Lazarus it must be Jesus?
I have come across this abuse of logic before. It's the way
creationists lie about creationism. Oh, wait ...
It's called a false dichotomy. One of the more frequent logic errors on
these NGs, especially from rabid theists.
Mr. Bowditch is one of the most learned, public, uncompromising and
admirable Skeptics in Australia and, I can assure you, is viciously
familiar with every known logical fallacy, and its abuses.
(Especially in the area of medical frauds. And they are legion.)
Stop it! That almost made me blush.
Blush away.
You have done the hard yards and earned it.
Your efforts at correcting destructive fraud and dangerous ignorance
outshine most.
(When can I pick up that cheque, by the way?!)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Bowditch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
02 Jan 2008 08:48:09 PM |
|
|
cactus <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:36:24 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
Worst yet are those that read it and reject.
You said "The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3
days says you're wrong". Who was this man? Please don't say Jesus,
because Jesus died on Friday and was resurrected sometime before dawn
on Sunday. That's not "3 days".
Scripture doesn't say 3-24 hour days, but on the 3rd day. See Luke.
Friday 3pm to 6pm - 1st day. Friday 6pm to Saturday 6pm (the sabbath)
- 2nd day. Saturday 6pm to Sunday (time unknown) - 3rd day.
You said "3 days". 3pm Friday to 6pm Friday is not a day.
"On the third day" is not the same as "3 days".
So who was this person who was dead for 3 days?
And it's not Lazarus either, because
"he had lain in the grave four days already" before Jesus arrived at
his tomb.
Now you know it truly is Jesus.
How do I know that? Are you saying that the only possibilities are
Jesus and Lazarus and that because it isn't Lazarus it must be Jesus?
I have come across this abuse of logic before. It's the way
creationists lie about creationism. Oh, wait ...
It's called a false dichotomy. One of the more frequent logic errors on
these NGs, especially from rabid theists.
Sad but true. And it doesn't matter how often it is pointed out to
them.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
31 Dec 2007 10:13:09 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:53:53 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
JohnN <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:32Â pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:48:54 -0800 (PST), "Carl Sagan's billions"
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are manmade.
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
I used to be.
After prolonged exposure witnessing such abject ignorance only evokes
two emotions:
Boredom, and boredom.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Bowditch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
01 Jan 2008 04:02:33 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:53:53 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
JohnN <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:32 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:48:54 -0800 (PST), "Carl Sagan's billions"
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are manmade.
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
I used to be.
After prolonged exposure witnessing such abject ignorance only evokes
two emotions:
Boredom, and boredom.
Perhaps "fascinated" was the wrong word. I should have save "slightly
amused but not surprised".
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hephaestus" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
01 Jan 2008 02:12:26 AM |
|
|
On Dec 31 2007, 10:13 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:53:53 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:32 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:48:54 -0800 (PST), "Carl Sagan's billions"
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are manmade.
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
I used to be.
After prolonged exposure witnessing such abject ignorance only evokes
two emotions:
Boredom, and boredom.
yawn, people who perceive to rid the world of all evil by simply
getting rid of a single instance of anything are boring to me.
How idiotic of a concept.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
01 Jan 2008 02:42:37 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 00:12:26 -0800 (PST), Hephaestus
<zeusnicobogey@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 31 2007, 10:13 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:53:53 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:32 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:48:54 -0800 (PST), "Carl Sagan's billions"
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are manmade.
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
I'm always fascinated by Bible believers who appear not to have read
it.
I used to be.
After prolonged exposure witnessing such abject ignorance only evokes
two emotions:
Boredom, and boredom.
yawn, people who perceive to rid the world of all evil by simply
getting rid of a single instance of anything are boring to me.
Straw man.
How idiotic of a concept.
Straw man.
How about you inject some substance into the interaction, if you are
able, as feeble as you might be capable of, oh crippled-one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
01 Jan 2008 08:09:32 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:33:12 -0800 (PST), JohnN
<jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are manmade.
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
Laz didn't go to hell. Hell is forever, so we know he didn't go
there. He was in purgatory.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nikolaos D. Bougalis" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
01 Jan 2008 06:49:47 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
Laz didn't go to hell. Hell is forever, so we know he didn't go
there. He was in purgatory.
Making stuff up as you go along, are you?
-n
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
--
"Humans should not date robots"
Space Pope Crocodylus I
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hephaestus" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
01 Jan 2008 11:23:28 PM |
|
|
On Jan 1, 6:49 pm, "Nikolaos D. Bougalis" <n...@webmaster.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
Laz didn't go to hell. Hell is forever, so we know he didn't go
there. He was in purgatory.
Making stuff up as you go along, are you?
-n
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
--
"Humans should not date robots"
Space Pope Crocodylus I
Actually that's a common Catholic belief.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
01 Jan 2008 11:16:55 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:33:12 -0800 (PST), JohnN
<jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are manmade.
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
Laz didn't go to hell. Hell is forever, so we know he didn't go
there. He was in purgatory.
Some folks who believe in your God, duke, believe you're only in Hell
for a limited time. Why are they wrong and you right?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
01 Jan 2008 01:24:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 09:16:55 -0800, DanielSan
<petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:33:12 -0800 (PST), JohnN
<jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are manmade.
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
Laz didn't go to hell. Hell is forever, so we know he didn't go
there. He was in purgatory.
Some folks who believe in your God, duke, believe you're only in Hell
for a limited time. Why are they wrong and you right?
No, none of them believe that.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
01 Jan 2008 01:48:34 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 09:16:55 -0800, DanielSan
<petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:33:12 -0800 (PST), JohnN
<jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
3. There is no heaven and hell. All religions are manmade, and
the concepts of heaven and hell are manmade.
The only man to walk out of his grave after being dead for 3 days says
you're wrong.
Lazarus said that?
Laz didn't go to hell. Hell is forever, so we know he didn't go
there. He was in purgatory.
Some folks who believe in your God, duke, believe you're only in Hell
for a limited time. Why are they wrong and you right?
No, none of them believe that.
Mormons don't?
"Those who live lives of wickedness may also be heirs of salvation, that
is, they too shall be redeemed from death and from hell eventually.
These, however, must suffer in hell the torments of the damned until
they pay the price of their sinning, for the blood of Christ will not
cleanse them." --Joseph Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, 133-134
http://www.christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/mormonism-overview.html
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is rejecting Christianity a step forward? |
03 Jan 2008 07:27:27 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 11:48:34 -0800, DanielSan
<petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote:
Some folks who believe in your God, duke, believe you're only in Hell
for a limited time. Why are they wrong and you right?
No, none of them believe that.
Mormons don't?
They're not Christians.
"Those who live lives of wickedness may also be heirs of salvation, that
is, they too shall be redeemed from death and from hell eventually.
These, however, must suffer in hell the torments of the damned until
they pay the price of their sinning, for the blood of Christ will not
cleanse them." --Joseph Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, 133-134
http://www.christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/mormonism-overview.html
I rest my case.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
