| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"St. Jackanapes" |
| Date: |
29 Apr 2007 05:07:14 AM |
| Object: |
JOHN LOIODICE: THE GREAT CHRISTIAN HYPOCRITE |
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried,
saying, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink." - John
7:37
But what does John Loiodice say? On his website he gloats in his typical
proud way about the amount of people that he has turned away from his
spiritual door. His website named Bible Web <http://bibleweb.info/> has
a small link at the bottom of the main doorway page that says "Banned IP
Addresses" - a click on that link leads to a page of some 100 or so IP
numbers of visitors to his website.
Visitors that he has turned away and shut out from the word of God &
Jesus! You say that maybe those people abused his site - that's
possible. But that many? I run a controversial website and rarely have I
had problems. And why does he gloat about banning these people by making
the list public like trophies from a hunt? It's not to let people know
that their IP's have been banned.
First, the majority of people don't know they have an IP, or even what
it is. Also, the majority of those numbers were no good the moment the
person John had banned simply hung up their modem and ended their online
session. Dial-ups do not have dynamic IP numbers, as most webmasters,
except maybe John, know very well. Cable modems may keep the same number
for anywhere from a week to two months. And there are ways to force your
modem to renew it's IP number to defeat banned IP pages.
No, it just boils down to John's pride. He's a boastful Christian. An
"I'm better than you unwashed atheist swine" kind of Christian. He
himself has posted that Atheist newsgroups like alt.atheism and
alt.flame.jesus.christ should be closed, along with free speech
protected websites next. John Loiodice does not believe in the freedom
from the church that Jefferson wrote into our Constitution. And oddly
enough, he rejects the forgiving nature that Christ was supposed to
instill in his followers.
John Loiodice, spammer, stalker has now sunk so low that he's posting
home addresses and phone numbers of people who simply asked him to stop
spamming their newsgroup. When we finally got so sick of his countless
sock-puppets we enacted a Group Plonk. This action, ignoring him, flew
him into the rage that made him post the home address & phone number of
a defenseless single female in her 60's that's a regular in our group.
He had her info because he'd wired her money to help her through tough
financial times several months ago. When she joined the group shunning,
this self-professed Super Christian made her information public in the
sickest of ways - by laughing about it as he did it.
This only confirms to me that my convictions about the evils of
Christianity are true and correct. It's simply a refuge for the sick &
debased hypocrites of the world.
--
St. Jackanapes ~ Bearer of The One True Liver ~
Ordained Minister & Holy Saint of The Universal Life Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSITE: http://www.jackanapes.ws | FORUM: http://www.voy.com/20630
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Diet with Dr. Chung: http://www.jackanapes.ws/2pdcat.html
.
|
|
| User: "Joy Oink" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN LOIODICE: THE GREAT CHRISTIAN HYPOCRITE |
07 May 2007 09:22:01 AM |
|
|
"St. Jackanapes" <biuqwhqw@mwff9w789.com> wrote in message news:MPG.209e384ac032f4dd98991f@news.alt.net...
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried,
saying, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink." - John
7:37
--
St. Jackanapes ~ Bearer of The One True Liver ~
Ordained Minister & Holy Saint of The Universal Life Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSITE: http://www.jackanapes.ws | FORUM: http://www.voy.com/20630
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Diet with Dr. Chung: http://www.jackanapes.ws/2pdcat.html
"St. Jackanapes" <blablablabla@blablablabla.ws> wrote in message news:t9p7h.4u0.17.1@news.alt.net...
Over the years Father Haskell has brought up the famous - or infamous -
Stanford University psychology experiment that shed light on the dark
side to human nature. A new book is out by Philip Zimbardo, who ran the
Stanford experiment back in 1971. It explores the Abu Ghraib debacle and
the psychology of evil, and explores the parallels between the Stanford
Experiment and Abu Ghraib.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/apr/book-excerpt
The Total Collapse (Death) of Atheism
http://76.162.173.93/uit/coa/
ATHEISM-WHAT IF THERE IS NO GOD? Though a
recent poll indicates that only about 5 percent of Americans do
not believe in God, the influence of atheistic thinkers in our time is
certainly widespread. Most college students have studied the writings
or the thoughts of existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, communist Karl Marx,
capitalist Ayn Rand, or psychologists Sigmund Freud and
B.F. Skinner. In the 1960s, the following passage from
Friedrich Nietzsche became a motto for the "God is dead" movement:
"Where is God gone?" he called out. "I mean to tell you! We
have killed him-you and I! We are all his murderers! . Do we not hear the
noise of the grave diggers who are burying God? . God is dead! God
remains dead!"1
Religion Without God? In 1961, the Supreme Court ruled that there are
some atheistic religions and cited among them Hinayana Buddhism, Taoism,
and secular humanism. Here are some of the beliefs of secular humanism:
1. "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not
created." 2. "Humanism believes that man is a part of the universe and
that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process." 3. "We can
discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species.. No deity
will save us; we must save ourselves." 4. "We affirm that moral values
derive their source from human experience. Ethics are autonomous and
situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction." 5. "Moral
education for children and adults is an important way of developing
awareness and sexual maturity." 6. "To enhance freedom and dignity the
individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all
societies. This includes . an individual's right to die with dignity,
euthanasia, and the right to suicide." [All quotes from Humanist
Manifestos I and II, ed. by Paul Kurtz (Buffalo: Prometheus Books,
1973).] Not all atheists are quite as militant, however. Karl Marx echoed
the sentiments of many modern atheists when he wrote, "Nowadays, in our
evolutionary conception of the universe, there is absolutely no room for
either a creator or a ruler."2 While a skeptic doubts that God exists,
and an agnostic says that he doesn't know if God is out there, the
atheist claims to know that there is no God. There is only the world and
the natural forces that operate it.
WHAT DO ATHEISTS BELIEVE ABOUT GOD?
There are different kinds of atheism.
Some believe that God once existed, but died in the body of Jesus Christ.
Others say that it is impossible to talk about God because we can't know
anything about Him, so He may as well not exist. Still others say that
there is no longer any need for the God-myth that once flourished among
men. But the classic view holds that there never was and never will be a
God either in the world or beyond it. Those who hold this view object
that the arguments used to prove God's existence are faulty. God is
simply a creation of human imagination.
1 Friedrich Nietzsche, Joyful Wisdom, trans. by Thomas Common (New York:
Frederick Unger Publishing Co., 1960), section 125, pp. 167-168. 2 See
Marx and Engels on Religion, ed. by Reinhold Niebuhr (New York: Schocken,
1964), p. 295.
ATHEISM-WHAT IF THERE IS NO GOD?
Though a recent poll indicates that only about 5 percent of Americans do
not believe in God, the influence of atheistic thinkers in our time is
certainly widespread. Most college students have studied the writings or
the thoughts of existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, communist Karl Marx,
capitalist Ayn Rand, or psychologists Sigmund Freud and B.F. Skinner.
In the 1960s, the following passage from Friedrich Nietzsche became a
motto for the "God is dead" movement:
"Where is God gone?" he called out. "I mean to tell you! We have killed
him-you and I! We are all his murderers! . Do we not hear the noise
of the grave diggers who are burying God? . God is dead! God remains
dead!"1
Religion Without God?
In 1961, the Supreme Court ruled that there are some atheistic religions
and cited among them Hinayana Buddhism, Taoism, and secular
humanism. Here are some of the beliefs of secular humanism:
1. "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not
created."
2. "Humanism believes that man is a part of the universe and that he has
emerged as the result of a continuous process."
3. "We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human
species.. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves."
4. "We affirm that moral values derive their source from human
experience. Ethics are autonomous and situational, needing no theological
or ideological sanction."
5. "Moral education for children and adults is an important way of
developing awareness and sexual maturity."
6. "To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full
range of civil liberties in all societies. This includes . an individual's right
to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide." [All quotes from
Humanist Manifestos I and II, ed. by Paul Kurtz (Buffalo: Prometheus
Books, 1973).]
Not all atheists are quite as militant, however. Karl Marx echoed the
sentiments of many modern atheists when he wrote, "Nowadays, in our
evolutionary conception of the universe, there is absolutely no room for
either a creator or a ruler."2
While a skeptic doubts that God exists, and an agnostic says that he
doesn't know if God is out there, the atheist claims to know that there is
no God. There is only the world and the natural forces that operate it.
WHAT DO ATHEISTS BELIEVE ABOUT GOD?
There are different kinds of atheism. Some believe that God once existed,
but died in the body of Jesus Christ. Others say that it is impossible to
talk about God because we can't know anything about Him, so He may
as well not exist. Still others say that there is no longer any need for the
God-myth that once flourished among men. But the classic view holds
that there never was and never will be a God either in the world or
beyond it. Those who hold this view object that the arguments used to
prove God's existence are faulty. God is simply a creation of human
imagination.
WHAT DO ATHEISTS BELIEVE ABOUT THE WORLD?
Many believe the world is uncreated and eternal. Others say it came into
existence "out of nothing and by nothing." It is self-sustaining and self-
perpetuating. They argue that if everything needs a cause, then one can
ask, "What caused the first cause?" So they claim that there must have
been a series of causes that reaches back into the past forever. Some
simply say that the universe is not caused; it is just there.
WHAT DO ATHEISTS BELIEVE ABOUT EVIL?
While atheists deny God's existence, they affirm the reality of evil. They
think the existence of evil is one of the primary evidences that there is no
God. One atheist philosopher even wonders what could possibly make a
Christian admit that his beliefs are false if he still believes in the existence
of God while evil is present in the world. Some also argue that it is absurd
to believe in God since God made all things, and evil is a thing, so God
must have made evil.
WHAT DO ATHEISTS BELIEVE ABOUT VALUES?
If there is no God, and man is merely a collection of chemicals, then there
is no reason to believe that anything has eternal value. Atheists believe
that morals are relative and situational. There may be some enduring
ethical principles, but these were created by man, not revealed by God.
Goodness is defined as whatever works to achieve the desired results.
Atheist philosophers have asked some questions which challenge us to
think about our faith. However, the objections that are raised about
God's existence have already been addressed in our arguments in chapter
2. Briefly stated, an infinite series of causes is impossible and
unnecessary, because Christians never said that everything needs a
cause-only events or things that change need causes. Asking, "What
caused the first cause?" is like asking, "What does a square triangle look
like?" or, "What is the smell of blue?" It is a meaningless question.
Triangles can't have four sides; colors don't smell; and first causes don't
have causes because they are first.
[1]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Friedrich Nietzsche, Joyful Wisdom, trans. by Thomas Common (New
York: Frederick Unger Publishing Co., 1960), section 125, pp.
167-168.
2 See Marx and Engels on Religion, ed. by Reinhold Niebuhr (New
York: Schocken, 1964), p. 295.
[1]Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). When skeptics ask (37).
Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.
.. Atheism is, essentially, a negative position
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a
god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any
belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of
atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in atheist circles;
at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you can't prove a
negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isn't to say that
atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist.
But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do
you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all
places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there were a
proof of Gods non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it.
But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or
denying Gods existence. The atheist position is very difficult, if not
impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.
Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheisms truth and there are no
proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
"Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does
not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually
indefensible."Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as
the basis of adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the
attack and negate any evidences presented for Gods existence in order to
give intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an
evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position
can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the negation of
theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to
self-proclaimed life.
There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible
and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words,
it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that something is
possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt the
position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on
Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth
adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at all. So,
simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a
possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for
atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more
than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there
really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step
up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice
cream exists.
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as fulfilled
biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the
entropy problem, etc.
But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for Gods
existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness
testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism
cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove
there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually
indefensible. At best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing
evidences for God so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences
for God because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist
in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far
presented has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be
evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must
acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been
undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible. This would make
the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be
skeptical of Gods existence.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning Gods existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the
vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it:
themselves.
Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws
from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. But, they do
live in societies that have legal systems with a codified set of laws.
This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However,
since the legal system changes the morals in a society can still change and
their morals along with it. At best, these codified morals are "temporary
absolutes." In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. So,
if we ask if it is or isn't it right, the atheist can only tell us his
opinion.
If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong. If there is no God, then
who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual,
then kill. This can be likened to something I call, "experimental ethics."
In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with
ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best for it.
Hopefully, these experiments lead to better and better moral behavior.
But, as we see by looking into society, this isn't the case: crime is on
the rise.
There are potential dangers in this kind of self-established/experimental
ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a
mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill,
what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system
and support the killings? It serves his self-interests, so why not?
Morality becomes a standard of convenience, not absolutes.
But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based
on the Bible, there is no guarantee that he will not also join forces in
doing what is wrong. People are often very inconsistent. But the issue
here is the basis of moral beliefs and how they affect behavior. That is
why belief systems are so important and absolutes are so necessary. If
morals are relative, then behavior will be too. That can be dangerous if
everyone starts doing right in his own eyes. A boat adrift without an
anchor will eventual crash into the rocks.
The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even
when it might harm the Christian. In contrast, the atheists'
presuppositions must be constantly changing, and subjective and does not
demand love, patience, and the welfare of others. Instead, since the great
majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution is
the product of purely natural and random processes that become self
serving.
Basically, the atheist cannot claim any moral absolutes at all. To an
atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad.
But, given human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes
-- based on God's word -- and not on the subjective and changing morals
that atheism offers.
Atheists often challenge the theist to prove God's existence only within
the confines of science.
Science has served humanity well. Through it we have discovered countless
natural laws of the universe and use that knowledge to make our lives
easier in every area of our existence. But to limit a theist's proofs to
the confines of what the atheist demands is terribly one sided. To a
Christian, there are experiences that science and logic cannot explain.
The atheist needs to recognize that we have experiences that are life
changing. No mere psychological set of theories explains the changes in
our lives. So please, don't mock them. Can science nail down all that
exists in mind, body, and soul? No. Can it quantify the beauty of a
sunset, the cooing of a baby, or the love of a man and a woman? Science
and logic have served us well, but they are not the ultimate truth to all
things.
Of course, that does not mean we ignore science. In fact, we use it in our
proofs for God. But to limit the playing field to your set of rules is an
improper way to start. It is mostly an attempt to initiate control and
keep command of the conversation by setting the ground rules according to
your criteria.
Though an atheist may not accept biblical evidence at support for God's
existence, it does not negate the fact that the Bible is evidence. Whether
or not the atheist wants to accept it, is another matter.
Name-calling and insults.
Of course, this is obvious. I heard it said once that the man who strikes
first admits his arguments have run out. In some of the discussions I've
had with atheists, when I've made a valid point in logic, I have been
insulted. To call someone a name is to attack the person and not the issue
and it closes the door to true discussion.
Condescension
This is the most common of all mistakes I've encountered with atheists.
I've been told by atheists that I'm an idiot for believing God, that if I
were truly intelligent I'd abandon my anachronistic thinking, etc. These
comments do nothing to further discussion.
Straw-man argumentation
Sometimes atheists will construct an argument against Christianity that
does not reflect a true Christian position. For example, one atheist
stated that the Trinity was illogical because three gods could not be one
God. I had to correct him and show him that the Trinity is the doctrine
that there is only one God in three persons, not three gods.
Other straw-man arguments deal with persons who claim to be Christians and
act in an unchristian manner. A typical example is the white supremacist
who claims to be a Christian and when he does something which is against
the Bible, his bad example is used to label all Christians.
In all, I enjoy mixing it up with atheists in their own environment. (-:
--
Don't be a jackanapes!
Use alias: St. Jackanapes as a basis for counterfeit.
"Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your
pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and
turn to attack you. "(Matthew 7:6 RSV)
.. The Total Collapse (Death) Of Atheism
http://76.162.173.93/uit/coa/
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's
clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." (Matthew 7:15 RSV)
.. There's no hurry?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrmDWn6awMA
"The best way to drive out the devil, if he will
not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and
flout him, for he cannot bear scorn."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Flying Rat, board-certified Earthquack trainer" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN LOIODICE: THE GREAT CHRISTIAN HYPOCRITE |
29 Apr 2007 08:38:07 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.209e384ac032f4dd98991f@news.alt.net>,
biuqwhqw@mwff9w789.com says...
This only confirms to me that my convictions about the evils of
Christianity are true and correct. It's simply a refuge for the sick &
debased hypocrites of the world.
http://kutv.com/local/local_story_116133225.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sexual Chocolate" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN LOIODICE: THE GREAT CHRISTIAN HYPOCRITE |
29 Apr 2007 12:55:12 PM |
|
|
<Flying Rat>; "board-certified Earthquack trainer" <chung.is.a.kook@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.209eb01480d295d7989bb4@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <MPG.209e384ac032f4dd98991f@news.alt.net>,
biuqwhqw@mwff9w789.com says...
This only confirms to me that my convictions about the evils of
Christianity are true and correct. It's simply a refuge for the sick &
debased hypocrites of the world.
http://kutv.com/local/local_story_116133125.html
http://76.162.173.93//members/=CD-R=r-c-sproul/hell/
login: guest password: guest
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
