| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"GoDrex" |
| Date: |
10 Oct 2006 01:32:24 PM |
| Object: |
question about jesus (and christians) |
Since I've been thinking a lot about torture lately, I started wondering
about christians and Jesus. The President of the USA is a born again
christian, and he has a lot of christian supporters in the USA. I was
wondering how they reconcile certain things Jesus said in the bible with
modern life in america (and elsewhere).
Here's a few things I found online that Jesus said:
-----------
[quote]
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
You have heard that the ancients were told, "You shall not commit murder"
and "Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court." But I say to you
that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the
court; and whoever says to his brother, "You good-for-nothing," shall be
guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, "You fool," shall be
guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth." But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps
you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue
you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to
go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn
away from him who wants to borrow from you.
You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your
enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes
His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous
and the unrighteous.
Pray in secret
When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand
and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be
seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you,
when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your
Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret
will reward you.
For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father
will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father
will not forgive your transgressions.
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust
destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves
treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves
do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will
be also.
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the
other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve
God and wealth.
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich
man to enter into the kingdom of God.
[/quote]
Oh yeah and the "do unto others.." thing..
---------------
So I guess what I'm wondering is do people take these ideas seriously or
just pay them lip service? Or is there a way to spin them into meaning
something else?
.
|
|
| User: "Reuben Hick" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
17 Oct 2006 11:14:06 AM |
|
|
"Daniel S. Vieira" <email-in-sig@no-spam.com> wrote in message
news:aW6Zg.12548$o71.5798@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Reuben Hick wrote:
Christianity, or Roman Catholicism? Two totally different worlds. As
I recall, it was the Dutch Calvinists who were being persecuted by the
Roman Catholics and the Anglican Church so they headed off to the New
World since dying there was better than dying in Europe.
Huh? The English Puritans living among the Dutch Reform in Holland were
doing very well. They lived in the north which was a republic run by
Calvinists (unlike the Catholic southern part of Holland -- comprising
most of modern day Belgium and Luxembourg as well) which was under Spanish
domination and very suspicious of Protestants.
Although the harsher persecutions of Puritans in England had ceased by the
time the future founders of the Plymouth Colony went to Holland, they were
always under suspicion by the Anglicans and the Crown, and were still
mocked and reviled by the Anglicans. For example, it was illegal to not
attend Anglican services on Sundays and holy days, being fined the modern
equivalent of five pounds for non-attendance. Once in Leiden (they
basically snuck out of England,) they were very at home among the Dutch
Reform.
The decision to leave for the New World came from three sources:
1) the employment in Leiden was starting to dry up, and they found it
difficult to attract new Sepratist "colonists" to the Dutch city.
2) because they were so well received by the Dutch Reform, the "colony"
leaders were concerned that the English Puritans would lose their cultural
identity and fully become Dutch within a generation. They strongly
believed that they should retain their English background.
3) this will suprise non-Calvinists (and non-historians), but an
attraction to the New World was the possibility of missionary work among
the natives. Reform Christians do understand the necessity of the
preaching of the Gospel, and the Engish Puritans were eager to bring the
faith to the natives.
Anyway, this was just to clarify that the decision to go to the New World
(Virginia was the original target) was not based on persecutions, but for
the above stated reasons.
Thanks for the correction. I will go back and consult with my sources and
see where I went wrong.
Have you ever read the book "The Americans: A Social History of the united
States" by JC Furnas?
Interesting read. The dude is a bit leftists, but the prose makes the
history fun to read.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
17 Oct 2006 10:59:33 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:47:18 GMT, "Daniel S. Vieira"
<email-in-sig@no-spam.com> wrote:
Reuben Hick wrote:
Christianity, or Roman Catholicism? Two totally different worlds. As I
recall, it was the Dutch Calvinists who were being persecuted by the Roman
Catholics and the Anglican Church so they headed off to the New World since
dying there was better than dying in Europe.
Huh? The English Puritans living among the Dutch Reform in Holland were
doing very well. They lived in the north which was a republic run by
Calvinists (unlike the Catholic southern part of Holland -- comprising
most of modern day Belgium and Luxembourg as well) which was under
Spanish domination and very suspicious of Protestants.
Although the harsher persecutions of Puritans in England had ceased by
the time the future founders of the Plymouth Colony went to Holland,
they were always under suspicion by the Anglicans and the Crown, and
were still mocked and reviled by the Anglicans. For example, it was
illegal to not attend Anglican services on Sundays and holy days, being
fined the modern equivalent of five pounds for non-attendance. Once in
Leiden (they basically snuck out of England,) they were very at home
among the Dutch Reform.
The decision to leave for the New World came from three sources:
1) the employment in Leiden was starting to dry up, and they found it
difficult to attract new Sepratist "colonists" to the Dutch city.
2) because they were so well received by the Dutch Reform, the "colony"
leaders were concerned that the English Puritans would lose their
cultural identity and fully become Dutch within a generation. They
strongly believed that they should retain their English background.
3) this will suprise non-Calvinists (and non-historians), but an
attraction to the New World was the possibility of missionary work among
the natives. Reform Christians do understand the necessity of the
preaching of the Gospel, and the Engish Puritans were eager to bring the
faith to the natives.
What "necessity of the preaching of the Gospel" would that be?
Anyway, this was just to clarify that the decision to go to the New
World (Virginia was the original target) was not based on persecutions,
but for the above stated reasons.
Dan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel S. Vieira" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
17 Oct 2006 11:15:25 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
What "necessity of the preaching of the Gospel" would that be?
It's far above your head, sorry. I Corinthians 2:14 comes to mind.
Dan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
17 Oct 2006 12:39:20 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:15:25 GMT, "Daniel S. Vieira"
<email-in-sig@no-spam.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
What "necessity of the preaching of the Gospel" would that be?
It's far above your head, sorry. I Corinthians 2:14 comes to mind.
Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?
Keep your religion to yourselves and you won't get told to shove it.
Rudely try to "justify" it using what you know is worthless *****
to those you do it to, and you won't get treated as the arrogant,
rude, in-yor face moron you show yourself.
Dan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel S. Vieira" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
17 Oct 2006 12:54:51 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Keep your religion to yourselves and you won't get told to shove it.
I couldn't honestly care less if you told me to "shove it" or anything
else. Feel free.
The fact is, as you are not illuminated by the Spirit of God, you can't
understand the Gospel message. So trying to explain the necessity of
such preaching to you would be about as fruitful as trying to explain it
to a box of rocks. No understanding, just gutter-mouth reactions like
we see below.
Rudely try to "justify" it using what you know is worthless *****
to those you do it to, and you won't get treated as the arrogant,
rude, in-yor face moron you show yourself.
Ah, so I should your "enlightened morality" as a paradigm for my life,
so I can be an "arrogant, rude, in-yo[u]r face moron," but an atheist one.
Gotchya.
Dan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
17 Oct 2006 01:30:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:54:51 GMT, "Daniel S. Vieira"
<email-in-sig@no-spam.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Keep your religion to yourselves and you won't get told to shove it.
I couldn't honestly care less if you told me to "shove it" or anything
else. Feel free.
The fact is, as you are not illuminated by the Spirit of God, you can't
understand the Gospel message. So trying to explain the necessity of
such preaching to you would be about as fruitful as trying to explain it
to a box of rocks. No understanding, just gutter-mouth reactions like
we see below.
Why are so many of you just plain nasty as well as stupid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Reuben Hick" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
17 Oct 2006 01:50:46 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:d88aj21bucvneld99p6k675jmu3kjpdu94@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:54:51 GMT, "Daniel S. Vieira"
<email-in-sig@no-spam.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Keep your religion to yourselves and you won't get told to shove it.
I couldn't honestly care less if you told me to "shove it" or anything
else. Feel free.
The fact is, as you are not illuminated by the Spirit of God, you can't
understand the Gospel message. So trying to explain the necessity of
such preaching to you would be about as fruitful as trying to explain it
to a box of rocks. No understanding, just gutter-mouth reactions like
we see below.
Why are so many of you just plain nasty as well as stupid?
Lets see. You are the one threatening, screaming insults and slandering
total strangers.
So naturally, when one of your targets accurately identifies the problem and
you can't understand it, they are the one who is "nasty and stupid". (BTW,
the 1 Corinthians 2:14 reference is completely appropriate and in this case
prophetically true)
FWIW the Bible's phrasing is "pearls before swine", Dan was being
respectfull and polite despite the fact you haven't earned any civility or
respect. (in normal day-to-day personal interactions, you would have earned
missing teeth)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
14 Oct 2006 08:18:00 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:23:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
Ben Hopkins <nospam.hopkins.ben@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in
<in%Xg.11268$o71.2108@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:42:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Bush plays to the fundies. I don't think anyone really considers him to
be a Christian of any sort.
Well ... REAL Christians always turn the other cheek. I think there's
one living on a mountain in Colorado.
How would you like a force of Christian policemen who practiced turning
the other cheek? Or an army of them?
We couldn't use them in the US. This self-described Christian nation
hardly has any people in it who follow Jesus' teachings. The ones in the
US tend to be a bit violent.
Still, we could use police who don't shoot or club first, who don't
instill fear, particularly in the poorest parts of town, when they show
up. We could use troops who don't massacre civilians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Reuben Hick" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
16 Oct 2006 08:11:11 AM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:pmo1j2huc52o08qgv1et5gl3j4dhfjpuk3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:23:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
Ben Hopkins <nospam.hopkins.ben@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in
<in%Xg.11268$o71.2108@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:42:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Bush plays to the fundies. I don't think anyone really considers him to
be a Christian of any sort.
Well ... REAL Christians always turn the other cheek. I think there's
one living on a mountain in Colorado.
How would you like a force of Christian policemen who practiced turning
the other cheek? Or an army of them?
We couldn't use them in the US. This self-described Christian nation
hardly has any people in it who follow Jesus' teachings. The ones in the
US tend to be a bit violent.
Really? Can you name any - or are you basking in the thrill of gratuitously
slandering a whole group of people?
I thought you non-Christians were "tolerant" and the models of civility when
compared to those "troglodyte Christians".
Still, we could use police who don't shoot or club first, who don't
instill fear, particularly in the poorest parts of town, when they show
up. We could use troops who don't massacre civilians.
Fine, but that doesn't answer Ben's question, instead it proves his point.
YOU say that Christians are a bunch of guilt-ridden pacifists that
indiscriminately allow predators to run wild. You further buttress this
argument by saying that those who aren't pacifists are not Christians but
frauds. So Ben asks you if you would prefer a force of Christians (not
frauds, but real Christians, therefore they must all be pacifists), you say
it won't work in the U.S.
Then you go about characterizing the current police force as roving bands of
knuckle dragging, homicidal thugs specifically ignoring rich and middle
class people so they can "massacre" poor people. This must be a good thing
because you don't want peaceful police, you say it won't work here, which
leads us to believe that you want something that does work, so you want a
police force that resembles Stasi, Sudanese warlords, Mugabe's police force
or the Taliban. What you are saying is that if the US wants a workable
system, it must use the police powers of the State to violently oppress the
poor.
Now for the reality check:
Who can you point to in government that thinks Rodney King didn't get enough
beatings?
If the government is targetting "poor people" where are the boxcars stuffed
full of poor people hauling them off for disposal?
If the police forces are so busy in this massacre, why do I see so damned
many of them hanging out at intersections and under bridges with their radar
guns?
The issue here is probably the U.S.'s number one problem. If some
political savior were to rescue this country from its impending demise, and
he could only do one thing, it would be to banish government pensions.
Other than the literal trillions of tax dollars this will save wage slaves
from paying, the very short explanation works like this: The longer an
ambitious person is in office, the higher up they go in authority,
responsibility and most important ~pay~. The real money happens at
retirement, where the high level bureaucrat makes far more in pension doing
absolutely nothing than he did his first years in government service. Since
one can retire much earlier from government service than from the private
sector, the retiree can embark on a whole new career parlaying the network
of friends and acquaintences (and those he has dirt on) into a lucrative
consulting business. The most important thing for the bureaucrat is to not
lose the six figure pension.
The best and sure fire way not to lose the pension, is to do absolutely
nothing that might ***** someone off. That means, take absolutely no risks,
and if you get caught doing something criminal, dangerous or seditious, do
everything in your power to obstruct the investigation and spin it to cover
your *****. How do you do this? By telling the subordinates to tweak data
and downright lie to make you look good (holding their pensions hostage), by
the use of grey mail against prosecutors, and black mail against witnesses.
So, given this fact, it all makes perfect sense why the generals are so
passive in Iraq, it fully explains why no one in Homeland Security is going
to bother the politically active Muslims or why ICE won't disturb the
illegals aliens, and why no police chief is going to send armies of goblins
in police uniforms to rough-up poor people. They do the politically correct
thing by sending out armies of Code Enforcement Agents, to raise city
revenue through the process of ad hoc tax collections gathered from middle
class red light crashers and speeders.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
16 Oct 2006 01:38:50 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:11:11 GMT, "Reuben Hick"
<ReubenHick@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:pmo1j2huc52o08qgv1et5gl3j4dhfjpuk3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:23:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
Ben Hopkins <nospam.hopkins.ben@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in
<in%Xg.11268$o71.2108@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:42:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Bush plays to the fundies. I don't think anyone really considers him to
be a Christian of any sort.
Well ... REAL Christians always turn the other cheek. I think there's
one living on a mountain in Colorado.
How would you like a force of Christian policemen who practiced turning
the other cheek? Or an army of them?
We couldn't use them in the US. This self-described Christian nation
hardly has any people in it who follow Jesus' teachings. The ones in the
US tend to be a bit violent.
Really? Can you name any
Almost all the "Christians" currently running the country for one.
I thought you non-Christians were "tolerant"
Wherever did you get that idea? It's Christians who claim to be the
morally superior ones.
YOU say that Christians are a bunch of guilt-ridden pacifists that
indiscriminately allow predators to run wild.
If you don't call Foley a predator, if you don't call allowing him to
continue for at least a year without stopping him running wild - you
need a better connection to reality.
If the government is targetting "poor people" where are the boxcars stuffed
full of poor people hauling them off for disposal?
Walk the streets of AnyMajorCity, USA. Freezing to death in the
streets, starving to death, is being disposed of.
Why won't the Watchtower, a Christian organization, allow the homeless
to huddle in its doorways at night to escape the cold wind blowing off
the river, let alone take them in, feed them and give them a warm bed
in an act of Christian charity? Because Christian charity begins -
and ends - at home?
If the police forces are so busy in this massacre, why do I see so damned
many of them hanging out at intersections and under bridges with their radar
guns?
Same reason you see so many soldiers cooking and washing clothes, even
though the job of a soldier is usually to kill the enemy. figure it
out.
The issue here is probably the U.S.'s number one problem. If some
political savior were to rescue this country from its impending demise, and
he could only do one thing, it would be to banish government pensions.
That would eliminate government - which might not be such a bad thing.
Other than the literal trillions of tax dollars this will save wage slaves
from paying
You're not paying the government pensions, the government workers are
paying them. You're paying for social security benefits private
sector 'pension'.
The real money happens at
retirement, where the high level bureaucrat makes far more in pension doing
absolutely nothing than he did his first years in government service.
The higher up in rank (and pension) you go, the fewer retirees there
are. (How many people are currently receiving a president's pension,
how many a pension from a $30,000/year job that barely pays the
Medicare copay?)
They do the politically correct
thing by sending out armies of Code Enforcement Agents, to raise city
revenue through the process of ad hoc tax collections gathered from middle
class red light crashers and speeders.
Simple solution - don't go through red lights and don't speed. I'll
bet you never thought of that.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Reuben Hick" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
16 Oct 2006 03:34:03 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:kkj7j2dvnvfpev8q7rddaohcdhfgrsignm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:11:11 GMT, "Reuben Hick"
<ReubenHick@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:pmo1j2huc52o08qgv1et5gl3j4dhfjpuk3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:23:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
Ben Hopkins <nospam.hopkins.ben@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in
<in%Xg.11268$o71.2108@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:42:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Bush plays to the fundies. I don't think anyone really considers him
to
be a Christian of any sort.
Well ... REAL Christians always turn the other cheek. I think there's
one living on a mountain in Colorado.
How would you like a force of Christian policemen who practiced turning
the other cheek? Or an army of them?
We couldn't use them in the US. This self-described Christian nation
hardly has any people in it who follow Jesus' teachings. The ones in the
US tend to be a bit violent.
Really? Can you name any
Almost all the "Christians" currently running the country for one.
OK, so you can't name any. I knew you were bluffing.
I thought you non-Christians were "tolerant"
Wherever did you get that idea? It's Christians who claim to be the
morally superior ones.
Trust me, the PC movement is not Christian.
But thats OK, I know that you are confusing the roles, but one thing we now
have made clear, you are on record as being intolerant and proud of it -
that would seem to disqualify you from any discussion on the matter since
you consider that a property of morality and you eschew tolerance, ergo you
also are amoral. A person boasting about his amorality has no place making
expectations of morality on others.
YOU say that Christians are a bunch of guilt-ridden pacifists that
indiscriminately allow predators to run wild.
If you don't call Foley a predator, if you don't call allowing him to
continue for at least a year without stopping him running wild - you
need a better connection to reality.
Oh, so YOUR definition of morality (ironically defined by an amoral person)
is that a person is supposed to loudly complain that Sinners are fulfilling
their job description. Why, can't you determine for yourself that Foley is
an overacheiving sinner? You need to have a chorus of Christians diverted
from more meaningful activities to tell you the obvious? Do you need to be
notified on which direction the sun will rise tomorrow morning? Will you
need to be reminded that water is wet? The Pope is Catholic? Bears poop
in the woods?
A new entry into your personal value system: Symbolism over substance.
I can feel the world becoming a better place. (ahhhh)
If the government is targetting "poor people" where are the boxcars
stuffed
full of poor people hauling them off for disposal?
Walk the streets of AnyMajorCity, USA. Freezing to death in the
streets, starving to death, is being disposed of.
I dunno about where you are, but its in the 90s around here, several months
away from any freezing, how long do I have to look? Furthermore, even
animals can figure out how to obtain shelter from the weather. Do you think
there may be some dimensions missing from your observation?
Why won't the Watchtower, a Christian organization...
That statement right there disqualifies you from discussing Christianity in
the same way a token five year old shouldn't be taken seriously when
discussing quantum mechanics.
[FYI: An absolute, fundamental requirement for being a Christian is to
recognize that Jesus is God. JWs view Jesus as a created being thus their
doctrine precludes any belief that Jesus is God]
[FYI squared: Muslims believe that Jesus is a prophet of God too but we
don't call Mohamedans "Christians" (unless we are jonesing for a severed
head)]
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
16 Oct 2006 11:45:21 PM |
|
|
"Reuben Hick" <ReubenHick@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%0SYg.383$T_1.360@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
[snip]
Trust me, the PC movement is not Christian.
Neither is the Calvinistic movement, wherever it goes.
But thats OK, I know that you are confusing the roles, but one thing we
now have made clear, you are on record as being intolerant and proud of it
???
As compared to killing people for not believing your doctrines, which are
obviously faulty?
that would seem to disqualify you from any discussion on the matter since
you consider that a property of morality and you eschew tolerance, ergo
you also are amoral.
Ah, and murdering people in the absence of Christ's rule because they don't
accept your demented doctrines is moral?
A person boasting about his amorality has no place making expectations of
morality on others.
And a person boasting about his immoral morality has no place making
expectations on the immorality of others.
YOU say that Christians are a bunch of guilt-ridden pacifists that
indiscriminately allow predators to run wild.
If you don't call Foley a predator, if you don't call allowing him to
continue for at least a year without stopping him running wild - you
need a better connection to reality.
Oh, so YOUR definition of morality (ironically defined by an amoral
person) is that a person is supposed to loudly complain that Sinners are
fulfilling their job description. Why, can't you determine for yourself
that Foley is an overacheiving sinner? You need to have a chorus of
Christians diverted from more meaningful activities to tell you the
obvious? Do you need to be notified on which direction the sun will rise
tomorrow morning? Will you need to be reminded that water is wet? The
Pope is Catholic? Bears poop in the woods?
A new entry into your personal value system: Symbolism over substance.
I can feel the world becoming a better place. (ahhhh)
As opposed to forcing the world to become a "better" place, only to find out
later you made it worse?
If the government is targetting "poor people" where are the boxcars
stuffed
full of poor people hauling them off for disposal?
Walk the streets of AnyMajorCity, USA. Freezing to death in the
streets, starving to death, is being disposed of.
I dunno about where you are, but its in the 90s around here, several
months away from any freezing, how long do I have to look?
Another of your typically asinine pointless statement.
Furthermore, even animals can figure out how to obtain shelter from the
weather. Do you think there may be some dimensions missing from your
observation?
oooh, now we're going to get into the "you're poor because its your fault"
argument. That line of reasoning didn't work in the book of Job, either.
Why won't the Watchtower, a Christian organization...
That statement right there disqualifies you from discussing Christianity
in the same way a token five year old shouldn't be taken seriously when
discussing quantum mechanics.
As do your calls to Calvinistic "manifest destiny."
Ike
www.eickleberrybooks.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
18 Oct 2006 11:24:28 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:45:21 -0500, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<Yeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism
"Reuben Hick" <ReubenHick@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%0SYg.383$T_1.360@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
[snip]
Trust me, the PC movement is not Christian.
Neither is the Calvinistic movement, wherever it goes.
But thats OK, I know that you are confusing the roles, but one thing we
now have made clear, you are on record as being intolerant and proud of it
???
As compared to killing people for not believing your doctrines, which are
obviously faulty?
that would seem to disqualify you from any discussion on the matter since
you consider that a property of morality and you eschew tolerance, ergo
you also are amoral.
Ah, and murdering people in the absence of Christ's rule because they don't
accept your demented doctrines is moral?
A person boasting about his amorality has no place making expectations of
morality on others.
And a person boasting about his immoral morality has no place making
expectations on the immorality of others.
YOU say that Christians are a bunch of guilt-ridden pacifists that
indiscriminately allow predators to run wild.
If you don't call Foley a predator, if you don't call allowing him to
continue for at least a year without stopping him running wild - you
need a better connection to reality.
Oh, so YOUR definition of morality (ironically defined by an amoral
person) is that a person is supposed to loudly complain that Sinners are
fulfilling their job description. Why, can't you determine for yourself
that Foley is an overacheiving sinner? You need to have a chorus of
Christians diverted from more meaningful activities to tell you the
obvious? Do you need to be notified on which direction the sun will rise
tomorrow morning? Will you need to be reminded that water is wet? The
Pope is Catholic? Bears poop in the woods?
A new entry into your personal value system: Symbolism over substance.
I can feel the world becoming a better place. (ahhhh)
As opposed to forcing the world to become a "better" place, only to find out
later you made it worse?
If the government is targetting "poor people" where are the boxcars
stuffed
full of poor people hauling them off for disposal?
Walk the streets of AnyMajorCity, USA. Freezing to death in the
streets, starving to death, is being disposed of.
I dunno about where you are, but its in the 90s around here, several
months away from any freezing, how long do I have to look?
Another of your typically asinine pointless statement.
Furthermore, even animals can figure out how to obtain shelter from the
weather. Do you think there may be some dimensions missing from your
observation?
oooh, now we're going to get into the "you're poor because its your fault"
argument. That line of reasoning didn't work in the book of Job, either.
Why won't the Watchtower, a Christian organization...
That statement right there disqualifies you from discussing Christianity
in the same way a token five year old shouldn't be taken seriously when
discussing quantum mechanics.
As do your calls to Calvinistic "manifest destiny."
The grilled reuben is done.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
16 Oct 2006 06:29:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:34:03 GMT, "Reuben Hick"
<ReubenHick@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:kkj7j2dvnvfpev8q7rddaohcdhfgrsignm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:11:11 GMT, "Reuben Hick"
<ReubenHick@hotmail.com> wrote:
We couldn't use them in the US. This self-described Christian nation
hardly has any people in it who follow Jesus' teachings. The ones in the
US tend to be a bit violent.
Really? Can you name any
Almost all the "Christians" currently running the country for one.
OK, so you can't name any. I knew you were bluffing.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Foley ...
I thought you non-Christians were "tolerant"
Wherever did you get that idea? It's Christians who claim to be the
morally superior ones.
Trust me, the PC movement is not Christian.
Lacking theism has nothing to do with being PC.
YOU say that Christians are a bunch of guilt-ridden pacifists that
indiscriminately allow predators to run wild.
If you don't call Foley a predator, if you don't call allowing him to
continue for at least a year without stopping him running wild - you
need a better connection to reality.
Oh, so YOUR definition of morality (ironically defined by an amoral person)
Says who? That my morals are different than yours doesn't make them
non-existent. From my viewpoint, you have no morals other than the
ones you get from a book, making YOU amoral.
is that a person is supposed to loudly complain that Sinners are fulfilling
their job description. Why, can't you determine for yourself that Foley is
an overacheiving sinner?
Since sin is a Christian concept, and I'm not Christian, I don't use
the word. Foley is someone NOT fulfilling his role as either a leader
of the country or a member of a group that claims moral superiority.
But you play the bagpipes very well.
If the government is targetting "poor people" where are the boxcars
stuffed full of poor people hauling them off for disposal?
Walk the streets of AnyMajorCity, USA. Freezing to death in the
streets, starving to death, is being disposed of.
I dunno about where you are, but its in the 90s around here, several months
away from any freezing, how long do I have to look?
If you're unaware of the number of homeless in this country you're
deliberately blind, and that's not amoral, it's immoral.
Furthermore, even animals can figure out how to obtain shelter from the weather.
Not when they're chased from it - by Christians.
Why won't the Watchtower, a Christian organization...
That statement right there disqualifies you from discussing Christianity in
the same way a token five year old shouldn't be taken seriously when
discussing quantum mechanics.
[FYI: An absolute, fundamental requirement for being a Christian is to
recognize that Jesus is God. JWs view Jesus as a created being thus their
doctrine precludes any belief that Jesus is God]
The bagpipes are nice, but oatmeal is oatmeal whether there's sugar in
it or not. FYI: You don't get to decide who's a Christian and who's
not.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Reuben Hick" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
17 Oct 2006 08:50:16 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:br48j2h59ae79o74g6jen2sb3tdddn95k3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:34:03 GMT, "Reuben Hick"
<ReubenHick@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:kkj7j2dvnvfpev8q7rddaohcdhfgrsignm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:11:11 GMT, "Reuben Hick"
<ReubenHick@hotmail.com> wrote:
We couldn't use them in the US. This self-described Christian nation
hardly has any people in it who follow Jesus' teachings. The ones in
the
US tend to be a bit violent.
Really? Can you name any
Almost all the "Christians" currently running the country for one.
OK, so you can't name any. I knew you were bluffing.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Foley ...
Foley is violent? And a Christian? When did Biblical Christianity approve
of sodomy?
Oh, I get it. You think that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Foley where on a
conference call with the Pope and Billy Graham lamenting about there being
so many people they wanted to kill but just couldn't hijack the military to
do it. So they patched in the head of Mossad in Tel Aviv and asked him if
the Jews could take the Munich incident to the next level and fool the West
into waging war against the peace loving Muslims - just because they had
brown skin and Christian Crusaders think that brown skinned people need
killing.
The Jews, needing fresh arab blood to bake their bread, and kidneys for the
aging Israeli population quickly jumped on this invitiation and that is why
the World Trade Center towers were hit. Rumsfeld ordered 2 F-16s to
simultaneously shoot down flight 93 over Pennsylvania to kill a page that
Foley sodomized and was scheduled to testify, and flight 77 over the
Atlantic so that a B2 bomber in the area loaded with JDAMs could drop one
on to the Pentagon without it showing up on any airport radar.
Tony Blaire (and the leaders of 40+ other nations) heard about this, and
threw a tantrum and promised to expose the whole plot unless he could join
in and torture and kill Muslims too.
George W Bush, still itching to kill the arabs that his dad couldn't kill
because the holy and righteous Colin Powel prevented it decided to kill
arabs everywhere, and because of the family closet connections to the
former Soviet Union, they felt compelled to honor the Communists by
finishing up the job in Afghanistan by killing more brown skinned
Koranimals. All that Taliban stuff, like Iraq's WMD is all made up to fool
the KKKhristians into endorsing and supporting this arab holocaust.
Rice, a KKKhristian, hates arabs too, but because she is black and a girl,
Bush wouldn't let her into the treehouse. So she promised to keep secret
his ongoing cocaine habit and adultery with her and in turn she was quickly
appointed to the State Department so she can kill Jews, which is what her
real love is, being a Christian and all. So now she is galvanting about the
Middle East making sure that Hezbella can kill Jews, and in turn she has
given cover to Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Foley to go back and torture and
kill innocent muslim women and children. Foley is in on it only if he can
sodomize young insurgents at Club G'itmo.
That mysterious Ryder truck that shows up at the rear entrance of the White
House on Tuesday evenings? Its full of innocent young muslim boys for Foley
to bugger, and innocent Muslim women and children for Bush, Cheney and
Rumsfeld to torture. usually they keep them barely alive until Sunday when
they then perform a Christian crucifixion on them right after the morning
Worship service. That's why the Rose Garden has been unusually fecund and
beautiful these past few years. Arabs make good lampshades and garden
mulch. (You can almost see the tree chipper they use to dispose of the
evidence in some of the White House photos, you need polarized sun glasses
tilted at a 45 degree angle to see it though)
---
I understand it all now. It has absolutely nothing to do with the sworn
duties of the Commander in Chief to protect the united States and employ the
military if the nation's security requires it.
Its all about God calling 'W' out in the middle of the night and speaking
through the Winnie the Pooh night-lite in the presidential bedroom, God told
'W' to go torture and kill as many arabs as he can. In turn the Winnie the
Pooh lite promised 'W' that the LORD would work a miracle on the Diebold
voting machines and grant unto him a second term so that he has an
additional four years to torture and kill innocent, peace loving muslims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "trees40" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
17 Oct 2006 12:29:59 PM |
|
|
Reuben Hick wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:br48j2h59ae79o74g6jen2sb3tdddn95k3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:34:03 GMT, "Reuben Hick"
<ReubenHick@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:kkj7j2dvnvfpev8q7rddaohcdhfgrsignm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:11:11 GMT, "Reuben Hick"
<ReubenHick@hotmail.com> wrote:
We couldn't use them in the US. This self-described Christian nation
hardly has any people in it who follow Jesus' teachings. The ones in
the
US tend to be a bit violent.
Really? Can you name any
Almost all the "Christians" currently running the country for one.
OK, so you can't name any. I knew you were bluffing.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Foley ...
Foley is violent? And a Christian? When did Biblical Christianity approve
of sodomy?
Oh, I get it. You think that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Foley where on a
conference call with the Pope and Billy Graham lamenting about there being
so many people they wanted to kill but just couldn't hijack the military to
do it. So they patched in the head of Mossad in Tel Aviv and asked him if
the Jews could take the Munich incident to the next level and fool the West
into waging war against the peace loving Muslims - just because they had
brown skin and Christian Crusaders think that brown skinned people need
killing.
The Jews, needing fresh arab blood to bake their bread, and kidneys for the
aging Israeli population quickly jumped on this invitiation and that is why
the World Trade Center towers were hit. Rumsfeld ordered 2 F-16s to
simultaneously shoot down flight 93 over Pennsylvania to kill a page that
Foley sodomized and was scheduled to testify, and flight 77 over the
Atlantic so that a B2 bomber in the area loaded with JDAMs could drop one
on to the Pentagon without it showing up on any airport radar.
Tony Blaire (and the leaders of 40+ other nations) heard about this, and
threw a tantrum and promised to expose the whole plot unless he could join
in and torture and kill Muslims too.
George W Bush, still itching to kill the arabs that his dad couldn't kill
because the holy and righteous Colin Powel prevented it decided to kill
arabs everywhere, and because of the family closet connections to the
former Soviet Union, they felt compelled to honor the Communists by
finishing up the job in Afghanistan by killing more brown skinned
Koranimals. All that Taliban stuff, like Iraq's WMD is all made up to fool
the KKKhristians into endorsing and supporting this arab holocaust.
Rice, a KKKhristian, hates arabs too, but because she is black and a girl,
Bush wouldn't let her into the treehouse. So she promised to keep secret
his ongoing cocaine habit and adultery with her and in turn she was quickly
appointed to the State Department so she can kill Jews, which is what her
real love is, being a Christian and all. So now she is galvanting about the
Middle East making sure that Hezbella can kill Jews, and in turn she has
given cover to Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Foley to go back and torture and
kill innocent muslim women and children. Foley is in on it only if he can
sodomize young insurgents at Club G'itmo.
That mysterious Ryder truck that shows up at the rear entrance of the White
House on Tuesday evenings? Its full of innocent young muslim boys for Foley
to bugger, and innocent Muslim women and children for Bush, Cheney and
Rumsfeld to torture. usually they keep them barely alive until Sunday when
they then perform a Christian crucifixion on them right after the morning
Worship service. That's why the Rose Garden has been unusually fecund and
beautiful these past few years. Arabs make good lampshades and garden
mulch. (You can almost see the tree chipper they use to dispose of the
evidence in some of the White House photos, you need polarized sun glasses
tilted at a 45 degree angle to see it though)
---
I understand it all now. It has absolutely nothing to do with the sworn
duties of the Commander in Chief to protect the united States and employ the
military if the nation's security requires it.
Its all about God calling 'W' out in the middle of the night and speaking
through the Winnie the Pooh night-lite in the presidential bedroom, God told
'W' to go torture and kill as many arabs as he can. In turn the Winnie the
Pooh lite promised 'W' that the LORD would work a miracle on the Diebold
voting machines and grant unto him a second term so that he has an
additional four years to torture and kill innocent, peace loving muslims.
Regardless, "it is all Bush's fault".
I hesitate putting this link in, because some folks wont get it...:
http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2006/05/bush_opens_new_.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
16 Oct 2006 05:30:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:11:11 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Reuben Hick" <ReubenHick@hotmail.com> wrote in
<PxLYg.16809$6S3.4851@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:pmo1j2huc52o08qgv1et5gl3j4dhfjpuk3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:23:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
Ben Hopkins <nospam.hopkins.ben@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in
<in%Xg.11268$o71.2108@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:42:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Bush plays to the fundies. I don't think anyone really considers him to
be a Christian of any sort.
Well ... REAL Christians always turn the other cheek. I think there's
one living on a mountain in Colorado.
How would you like a force of Christian policemen who practiced turning
the other cheek? Or an army of them?
We couldn't use them in the US. This self-described Christian nation
hardly has any people in it who follow Jesus' teachings. The ones in the
US tend to be a bit violent.
Really? Can you name any - or are you basking in the thrill of gratuitously
slandering a whole group of people?
I know many Christians who are followers of Jesus' teachings. I know
some very high profile ones who mock what Jesus taught: Pat Robertson,
George W Bush, James Dobson, Ralph Reed, and others.
I thought you non-Christians were "tolerant" and the models of civility when
compared to those "troglodyte Christians".
I am tolerant, that doesn't mean that I should be quiet when
self-described Christians lie about what they are doing.
Still, we could use police who don't shoot or club first, who don't
instill fear, particularly in the poorest parts of town, when they show
up. We could use troops who don't massacre civilians.
Fine, but that doesn't answer Ben's question, instead it proves his point.
YOU say that Christians are a bunch of guilt-ridden pacifists that
indiscriminately allow predators to run wild.
No I never said anything like that.
You further buttress this
argument by saying that those who aren't pacifists are not Christians but
frauds. So Ben asks you if you would prefer a force of Christians (not
frauds, but real Christians, therefore they must all be pacifists), you say
it won't work in the U.S.
Then you go about characterizing the current police force as roving bands of
knuckle dragging, homicidal thugs specifically ignoring rich and middle
class people so they can "massacre" poor people. This must be a good thing
because you don't want peaceful police, you say it won't work here, which
leads us to believe that you want something that does work, so you want a
police force that resembles Stasi, Sudanese warlords, Mugabe's police force
or the Taliban. What you are saying is that if the US wants a workable
system, it must use the police powers of the State to violently oppress the
poor.
Now for the reality check:
Who can you point to in government that thinks Rodney King didn't get enough
beatings?
If the government is targetting "poor people" where are the boxcars stuffed
full of poor people hauling them off for disposal?
If the police forces are so busy in this massacre, why do I see so damned
many of them hanging out at intersections and under bridges with their radar
guns?
The issue here is probably the U.S.'s number one problem. If some
political savior were to rescue this country from its impending demise, and
he could only do one thing, it would be to banish government pensions.
Other than the literal trillions of tax dollars this will save wage slaves
from paying, the very short explanation works like this: The longer an
ambitious person is in office, the higher up they go in authority,
responsibility and most important ~pay~. The real money happens at
retirement, where the high level bureaucrat makes far more in pension doing
absolutely nothing than he did his first years in government service. Since
one can retire much earlier from government service than from the private
sector, the retiree can embark on a whole new career parlaying the network
of friends and acquaintences (and those he has dirt on) into a lucrative
consulting business. The most important thing for the bureaucrat is to not
lose the six figure pension.
The best and sure fire way not to lose the pension, is to do absolutely
nothing that might ***** someone off. That means, take absolutely no risks,
and if you get caught doing something criminal, dangerous or seditious, do
everything in your power to obstruct the investigation and spin it to cover
your *****. How do you do this? By telling the subordinates to tweak data
and downright lie to make you look good (holding their pensions hostage), by
the use of grey mail against prosecutors, and black mail against witnesses.
So, given this fact, it all makes perfect sense why the generals are so
passive in Iraq, it fully explains why no one in Homeland Security is going
to bother the politically active Muslims or why ICE won't disturb the
illegals aliens, and why no police chief is going to send armies of goblins
in police uniforms to rough-up poor people. They do the politically correct
thing by sending out armies of Code Enforcement Agents, to raise city
revenue through the process of ad hoc tax collections gathered from middle
class red light crashers and speeders.
No, I don't follow this at all. It wasn't related to what I had said.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
14 Oct 2006 04:31:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:18:00 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:23:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
Ben Hopkins <nospam.hopkins.ben@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in
<in%Xg.11268$o71.2108@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:42:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Bush plays to the fundies. I don't think anyone really considers him to
be a Christian of any sort.
Well ... REAL Christians always turn the other cheek. I think there's
one living on a mountain in Colorado.
How would you like a force of Christian policemen who practiced turning
the other cheek? Or an army of them?
We couldn't use them in the US. This self-described Christian nation
hardly has any people in it who follow Jesus' teachings. The ones in the
US tend to be a bit violent.
Jayzus; "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Still, we could use police who don't shoot or club first, who don't
instill fear, particularly in the poorest parts of town, when they show
up. We could use troops who don't massacre civilians.
Ah, but might makes Reich! {I'm aware of the exceptions}
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
13 Oct 2006 08:25:38 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:38:24 -0500, trees40 <trees40xxx@knology.net>
wrote:
Bush is a Methodist. Hardly a fundamentalist. Get your facts straight.
Bush is a non-fundamentalist like he's a non-down-Easter. He puts on
an accent and everyone thinks he's a Bubba. He walks into a Methodist
church and everyone thinks he's not Apocalyptic.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones
- Carl Sagan, 1987.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
13 Oct 2006 08:56:55 PM |
|
|
trees40 <trees40xxx@knology.net> wrote:
Bush is a Christian in the same way Ben Laden is a Muslim.
How so with specificity?
Because they both use religion to justify the most heinous acts of death
and destruction, and they both use religionists who are gullible enough
to believe them when they claim to be doing "God's work".
bin Laden is a Wahabi Moslem, Putsch is a Fundamentalist Christian,
and I think I hear the sound of bagpipes.
Bush is a Methodist. Hardly a fundamentalist. Get your facts straight.
The type of Christianity he suffers from isn't as important as the type
of sociopathy he suffers from.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
14 Oct 2006 04:32:37 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:56:55 -0700, (Scott
Richter) wrote in alt.atheism
trees40 <trees40xxx@knology.net> wrote:
Bush is a Christian in the same way Ben Laden is a Muslim.
How so with specificity?
Because they both use religion to justify the most heinous acts of death
and destruction, and they both use religionists who are gullible enough
to believe them when they claim to be doing "God's work".
bin Laden is a Wahabi Moslem, Putsch is a Fundamentalist Christian,
and I think I hear the sound of bagpipes.
Bush is a Methodist. Hardly a fundamentalist. Get your facts straight.
The type of Christianity he suffers from isn't as important as the type
of sociopathy he suffers from.
Extreme psychopathic sociopathy.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
14 Oct 2006 04:28:01 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:12:10 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:18:47 -0700, (Scott
Richter) wrote:
Michael <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Bush is a Christian in the same way Ben Laden is a Muslim.
How so with specificity?
Because they both use religion to justify the most heinous acts of death
and destruction, and they both use religionists who are gullible enough
to believe them when they claim to be doing "God's work".
bin Laden is a Wahabi Moslem, Putsch is a Fundamentalist Christian,
and I think I hear the sound of bagpipes.
And they both suck-royally.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
14 Oct 2006 05:08:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:28:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <hil2j21kq4mp7dd772bnsa3n58h91bn4ah@4ax.com>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:12:10 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:18:47 -0700, (Scott
Richter) wrote:
Michael <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Bush is a Christian in the same way Ben Laden is a Muslim.
How so with specificity?
Because they both use religion to justify the most heinous acts of death
and destruction, and they both use religionists who are gullible enough
to believe them when they claim to be doing "God's work".
bin Laden is a Wahabi Moslem, Putsch is a Fundamentalist Christian,
and I think I hear the sound of bagpipes.
And they both suck-royally.
Bagpipes that suck.
Is that what they mean by "strange attractor"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
15 Oct 2006 12:50:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 07:38:04 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:28:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <hil2j21kq4mp7dd772bnsa3n58h91bn4ah@4ax.com>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:12:10 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:18:47 -0700, (Scott
Richter) wrote:
Michael <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Bush is a Christian in the same way Ben Laden is a Muslim.
How so with specificity?
Because they both use religion to justify the most heinous acts of death
and destruction, and they both use religionists who are gullible enough
to believe them when they claim to be doing "God's work".
bin Laden is a Wahabi Moslem, Putsch is a Fundamentalist Christian,
and I think I hear the sound of bagpipes.
And they both suck-royally.
Bagpipes that suck.
Is that what they mean by "strange attractor"?
Vacum.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
15 Oct 2006 08:08:54 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <i7t4j257n1kupd127i14vsultf1a8r1cd4@4ax.com>
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 07:38:04 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:28:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <hil2j21kq4mp7dd772bnsa3n58h91bn4ah@4ax.com>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:12:10 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:18:47 -0700, (Scott
Richter) wrote:
Michael <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Bush is a Christian in the same way Ben Laden is a Muslim.
How so with specificity?
Because they both use religion to justify the most heinous acts of death
and destruction, and they both use religionists who are gullible enough
to believe them when they claim to be doing "God's work".
bin Laden is a Wahabi Moslem, Putsch is a Fundamentalist Christian,
and I think I hear the sound of bagpipes.
And they both suck-royally.
Bagpipes that suck.
Is that what they mean by "strange attractor"?
Vacum.
Very good. Looks almost like "Vaticum".
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
18 Oct 2006 11:36:20 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:38:54 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <i7t4j257n1kupd127i14vsultf1a8r1cd4@4ax.com>
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 07:38:04 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:28:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <hil2j21kq4mp7dd772bnsa3n58h91bn4ah@4ax.com>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:12:10 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:18:47 -0700, (Scott
Richter) wrote:
Michael <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Bush is a Christian in the same way Ben Laden is a Muslim.
How so with specificity?
Because they both use religion to justify the most heinous acts of death
and destruction, and they both use religionists who are gullible enough
to believe them when they claim to be doing "God's work".
bin Laden is a Wahabi Moslem, Putsch is a Fundamentalist Christian,
and I think I hear the sound of bagpipes.
And they both suck-royally.
Bagpipes that suck.
Is that what they mean by "strange attractor"?
Vacum.
Very good. Looks almost like "Vaticum".
Now you've got the priests excited.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
18 Oct 2006 10:15:53 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:36:20 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <cvlcj29j95lcvmv9q3o7dbomcpdrfp70i1@4ax.com>
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:38:54 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <i7t4j257n1kupd127i14vsultf1a8r1cd4@4ax.com>
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 07:38:04 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:28:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <hil2j21kq4mp7dd772bnsa3n58h91bn4ah@4ax.com>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:12:10 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:18:47 -0700, (Scott
Richter) wrote:
Michael <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Bush is a Christian in the same way Ben Laden is a Muslim.
How so with specificity?
Because they both use religion to justify the most heinous acts of death
and destruction, and they both use religionists who are gullible enough
to believe them when they claim to be doing "God's work".
bin Laden is a Wahabi Moslem, Putsch is a Fundamentalist Christian,
and I think I hear the sound of bagpipes.
And they both suck-royally.
Bagpipes that suck.
Is that what they mean by "strange attractor"?
Vacum.
Very good. Looks almost like "Vaticum".
Now you've got the priests excited.
Prepare for extreme unction!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
19 Oct 2006 12:10:20 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
Very good. Looks almost like "Vaticum".
Now you've got the priests excited.
Prepare for extreme unction!
"Nuns Gone Wild!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
19 Oct 2006 06:36:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:10:20 -0700, (Scott
Richter) wrote:
- Refer: <1hnfc4z.13pbpmr6uyflN%>
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
Very good. Looks almost like "Vaticum".
Now you've got the priests excited.
Prepare for extreme unction!
"Nuns Gone Wild!"
"Nun butt the Brave"
A heartworming tale of catholicism amongst Native Americans.
(Rated XXX)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: question about jesus (and christians) |
19 Oct 2006 01:29:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:06:26 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:10:20 -0700, (Scott
Richter) wrote:
- Refer: <1hnfc4z.13pbpmr6uyflN%>
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
Very good. Looks almost like "Vaticum".
Now you've got the priests excited.
Prepare for extreme unction!
"Nuns Gone Wild!"
"Nun butt the Brave"
A heartworming tale of catholicism amongst Native Americans.
(Rated XXX)
And chock full of cunning linguists.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
