| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Smith Computer" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2005 09:03:59 AM |
| Object: |
Questions from Enkidu |
Enkidu asks that I:
Answer the question posed below, if you have any "wisdom" to offer.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
You have attempted an answer to your question but in error. The Creator is
willing and able, yet allows evil to preside upon the earth to show the
entire universe that "the resister" whose name is satan, lied when he
accused the Creator of holding something good from mankind, namely the tree
of knowledge of good and evil. This allowance is short lived however, when
you consider that in a very short while, the entire universe will recognize
that truth and evil will be done away with, leaving a clean populous to
reside on a cleansed earth forever.
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Evil came into the world by the committing of sin, which means to miss the
mark. The first sin, was committed by the original pair and allows evil to
preside upon the earth to show the entire universe that "the resister" whose
name is satan, lied when he accused the Creator of holding something good
from mankind, namely the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This allowance
is short lived however, when you consider that in a very short while, the
entire universe will recognize that truth and evil will be done away with,
leaving a clean populous to reside on a cleansed earth forever.
Then why call him God?
Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
We call him the Creator for he created all good things. We call him God ,
for that is a title which describes him. We, in English, use the name
Jehovah, for that is the accepted translation of the letters YHWH, which are
the earliest indication of his name.
The Bible speaks of Epicurus with his idea of "let us eat and drink, for
tomorrow we are to die," denied the resurrection hope taught by Christians
in their ministry.-1Co 15:32. "Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil
useful habits. 34 Wake up to soberness in a righteous way and do not
practice sin, for some are without knowledge of God. I am speaking to move
YOU to shame."
For not the way man sees [is the way God sees], because mere man sees what
appears to the eyes
The Smitty
.
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
13 Jan 2005 02:28:12 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 03:47:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
If it's true you should have no problem posting chapter and verse.
I have no problem with finding chapter and verse to support my
contention but to what end?... to pander to your obsession with
a God who needs no proof, a God you believe doesn't exist?
Until you do, the default position is that it's not true.
Is that the 'default' position? LOL
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
Then we'll see Superman when?
Does the Book say anything about 'Superman'?... chapter and verse?
The book proves itself, remember. Of
course you aren't guilty of special pleading, are you?
'Special pleading' is about all the pleading we're capable of
as human beings. Just about every word uttered is a
special plea. And yes, the Book as do all books, proves
itself right or wrong.
Every book proves itself right or wrong. Whoever indoctrinated
you otherwise is an idiot. So, what does that make you?
Someone almost infinitely more intelligent, and certainly better
educated, than you are. I don't make glaring logical errors, the way
you constantly do.
Logic?... what do you know of logic's self contradiction?: 'the
first and most important characteristic of all logic is that any
affirmative statement can be balanced by an equally true
contradictory statement.'
The idea, mr. " infinitely more intelligent" philosopher, is not
in the reading of philosophy but in its doing... freeing oneself
from the tyranny of dictionaries by writing one's own,
wherein words are not treated as little gems but as stepping
stones to conceptual relevance..
*NO* book, by merely existing, proves that what's in that book is
true. If that were so, Superman would be real - the book proves
itself true.
A book without a reader is worthless. With a reader it proves
itself right or wrong. Whether the reader understands what he
reads rightly or wrongly is irrelevant.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
11 Jan 2005 11:26:05 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
That book is a crutch, a comforter [a dummy], a joke!
Just try to imagine, if Christianity did not have that book and the unproven
highly dubious Jesus story, how long would Christianity last?
If you want God's word on the subject you need to go to
the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
Oh? Where (chapter and verse) does it say that those books, and only
those books, are 100% accurate and all others are "but the words of a
fallible man"?
De 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good,
and death and evil,
Not in the bible, dolt! A book can't be used as proof that what the
book says is true. If you think it can, I want Superman to personally
deliver your message to me. It says in a book that he really exists,
so it must be true.
Every book proves itself right or wrong. Whoever indoctrinated
you otherwise is an idiot. So, what does that make you?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
13 Jan 2005 01:28:00 AM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
All books prove themselves right or wrong.
That book is a crutch, a comforter [a dummy], a joke!
Irrelevant.
Just try to imagine, if Christianity did not have that book and the unproven
highly dubious Jesus story, how long would Christianity last?
Irrelevant.
Every book proves itself right or wrong. Whoever indoctrinated
you otherwise is an idiot. So, what does that make you?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
14 Jan 2005 05:08:15 AM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
All books prove themselves right or wrong.
....as usual for a relgionist you answer a question with an oblique indirect
statement. Now tell me how the bible can prove what is written in it?
That book is a crutch, a comforter [a dummy], a joke!
Irrelevant.
Just try to imagine, if Christianity did not have that book and the unproven
highly dubious Jesus story, how long would Christianity last?
Irrelevant.
Hardly - without it Christians would be hard pushed to find anything to talk
about
Every book proves itself right or wrong.
????~!!!! Is this Mensa logic?
Whoever indoctrinated
you otherwise is an idiot. So, what does that make you?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
14 Jan 2005 07:39:44 AM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
All books prove themselves right or wrong.
...as usual for a relgionist you answer a question with an oblique indirect
statement. Now tell me how the bible can prove what is written in it?
Perusal of its contents.
That book is a crutch, a comforter [a dummy], a joke!
Irrelevant.
Just try to imagine, if Christianity did not have that book and the unproven
highly dubious Jesus story, how long would Christianity last?
Irrelevant.
Hardly - without it Christians would be hard pushed to find anything to talk
about
Something else would take its place in the same way it
replaced what came before.
Every book proves itself right or wrong.
????~!!!! Is this Mensa logic?
How would I know?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
14 Jan 2005 12:23:06 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:39:44 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
All books prove themselves right or wrong.
...as usual for a relgionist you answer a question with an oblique indirect
statement. Now tell me how the bible can prove what is written in it?
Perusal of its contents.
You are implying that you are the arbitrator of truth in the bible
with nothing other than, what it sounds right to you? Pretty lofty
status you are putting on yourself. Deciding before God himself what
part of his book says is truth and what is not.
That book is a crutch, a comforter [a dummy], a joke!
Irrelevant.
Just try to imagine, if Christianity did not have that book and the unproven
highly dubious Jesus story, how long would Christianity last?
Irrelevant.
Hardly - without it Christians would be hard pushed to find anything to talk
about
Something else would take its place in the same way it
replaced what came before.
Every book proves itself right or wrong.
????~!!!! Is this Mensa logic?
How would I know?
Self proven, not to understand logic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
14 Jan 2005 02:37:55 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:39:44 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
All books prove themselves right or wrong.
...as usual for a relgionist you answer a question with an oblique indirect
statement. Now tell me how the bible can prove what is written in it?
Perusal of its contents.
You are implying that you are the arbitrator of truth in the bible
with nothing other than, what it sounds right to you? Pretty lofty
status you are putting on yourself. Deciding before God himself what
part of his book says is truth and what is not.
Dearheart, we are all arbiters of truth... cognizance requires judgment.
That you see a different truth is irrelevant, except to consequences.
Its the consequences that prove right or wrong, unless of course
you're immune to them.
That book is a crutch, a comforter [a dummy], a joke!
Irrelevant.
Just try to imagine, if Christianity did not have that book and the unproven
highly dubious Jesus story, how long would Christianity last?
Irrelevant.
Hardly - without it Christians would be hard pushed to find anything to talk
about
Something else would take its place in the same way it
replaced what came before.
Every book proves itself right or wrong.
????~!!!! Is this Mensa logic?
How would I know?
Self proven, not to understand logic.
So, you believe logic is logical... LOL
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
16 Jan 2005 10:03:03 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:37:55 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:39:44 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
All books prove themselves right or wrong.
...as usual for a relgionist you answer a question with an oblique indirect
statement. Now tell me how the bible can prove what is written in it?
Perusal of its contents.
You are implying that you are the arbitrator of truth in the bible
with nothing other than, what it sounds right to you? Pretty lofty
status you are putting on yourself. Deciding before God himself what
part of his book says is truth and what is not.
Dearheart, we are all arbiters of truth... cognizance requires judgment.
That you see a different truth is irrelevant, except to consequences.
Its the consequences that prove right or wrong, unless of course
you're immune to them.
It is immoral to run your life that way. You have closed your mind to
evidence, to words of your god to pretty much anything and proclaimed
yourself the truth.
I feel sorry for the others in your life. You must be a real problem
to anyone you have power over.
That book is a crutch, a comforter [a dummy], a joke!
Irrelevant.
Just try to imagine, if Christianity did not have that book and the unproven
highly dubious Jesus story, how long would Christianity last?
Irrelevant.
Hardly - without it Christians would be hard pushed to find anything to talk
about
Something else would take its place in the same way it
replaced what came before.
Every book proves itself right or wrong.
????~!!!! Is this Mensa logic?
How would I know?
Self proven, not to understand logic.
So, you believe logic is logical... LOL
It has worked for as long as man could think. Apparently you are
proof against evidence. No surprise there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
19 Jan 2005 07:11:58 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:37:55 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:39:44 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
All books prove themselves right or wrong.
...as usual for a relgionist you answer a question with an oblique indirect
statement. Now tell me how the bible can prove what is written in it?
Perusal of its contents.
You are implying that you are the arbitrator of truth in the bible
with nothing other than, what it sounds right to you? Pretty lofty
status you are putting on yourself. Deciding before God himself what
part of his book says is truth and what is not.
Dearheart, we are all arbiters of truth... cognizance requires judgment.
That you see a different truth is irrelevant, except to consequences.
Its the consequences that prove right or wrong, unless of course
you're immune to them.
It is immoral to run your life that way. You have closed your mind to
evidence, to words of your god to pretty much anything and proclaimed
yourself the truth.
It would be helpful if you could show where I differ with God's
word in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
14 Jan 2005 01:38:10 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2005 12:23:06 -0600, (Kate ) said in
alt.atheism:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:39:44 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
...as usual for a relgionist you answer a question with an oblique indirect
statement. Now tell me how the bible can prove what is written in it?
Perusal of its contents.
You are implying that you are the arbitrator of truth in the bible
with nothing other than, what it sounds right to you? Pretty lofty
status you are putting on yourself. Deciding before God himself what
part of his book says is truth and what is not.
That's what all believers in revealed religions do.
--
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
14 Jan 2005 11:57:15 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
All books prove themselves right or wrong.
...as usual for a relgionist you answer a question with an oblique indirect
statement. Now tell me how the bible can prove what is written in it?
Perusal of its contents.
I have done that and a lot of others have done so too
There is much in the Bible against which every
instinct of my being rebels, so much that I regret
the necessity which has compelled me to read it
through from beginning to end. I do not think that
the knowledge which I have gained of its history and
sources compensates me for the unpleasant details
its has forced upon my attention.
[Helen Keller (1880-1968)
The Story of My Life_ [1902], Chapter 21
That book is a crutch, a comforter [a dummy], a joke!
Irrelevant.
Just try to imagine, if Christianity did not have that book and the unproven
highly dubious Jesus story, how long would Christianity last?
Irrelevant.
Hardly - without it Christians would be hard pushed to find anything to talk
about
Something else would take its place in the same way it
replaced what came before.
Yes, that is what we do to keep power in place. Must not let go - ever.
Every book proves itself right or wrong.
????~!!!! Is this Mensa logic?
How would I know?
Well you post to org.mensa, thought you might be a member. Maybe you speak Esperanto
as well. A lot of Mensa types do - another way of showing their power over others,
superiorority, influence - we humans love it you know
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
15 Jan 2005 10:16:17 PM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
All books prove themselves right or wrong.
...as usual for a relgionist you answer a question with an oblique indirect
statement. Now tell me how the bible can prove what is written in it?
Perusal of its contents.
I have done that and a lot of others have done so too
There is much in the Bible against which every
instinct of my being rebels, so much that I regret
the necessity which has compelled me to read it
through from beginning to end. I do not think that
the knowledge which I have gained of its history and
sources compensates me for the unpleasant details
its has forced upon my attention.
[Helen Keller (1880-1968)
The Story of My Life_ [1902], Chapter 21
Quoting others is not a conceptually relevant act.
That book is a crutch, a comforter [a dummy], a joke!
Irrelevant.
Just try to imagine, if Christianity did not have that book and the unproven
highly dubious Jesus story, how long would Christianity last?
Irrelevant.
Hardly - without it Christians would be hard pushed to find anything to talk
about
Something else would take its place in the same way it
replaced what came before.
Yes, that is what we do to keep power in place. Must not let go - ever.
What happens when we let go?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
16 Jan 2005 12:21:55 AM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
All books prove themselves right or wrong.
...as usual for a relgionist you answer a question with an oblique indirect
statement. Now tell me how the bible can prove what is written in it?
Perusal of its contents.
I have done that and a lot of others have done so too
There is much in the Bible against which every
instinct of my being rebels, so much that I regret
the necessity which has compelled me to read it
through from beginning to end. I do not think that
the knowledge which I have gained of its history and
sources compensates me for the unpleasant details
its has forced upon my attention.
[Helen Keller (1880-1968)
The Story of My Life_ [1902], Chapter 21
Quoting others is not a conceptually relevant act.
More relevant than kneeling down, putting two hands together talking to something with no
existance.
At least Helen Keller existed! She had brains too!
That book is a crutch, a comforter [a dummy], a joke!
Irrelevant.
Just try to imagine, if Christianity did not have that book and the unproven
highly dubious Jesus story, how long would Christianity last?
Irrelevant.
Hardly - without it Christians would be hard pushed to find anything to talk
about
Something else would take its place in the same way it
replaced what came before.
Yes, that is what we do to keep power in place. Must not let go - ever.
What happens when we let go?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
19 Jan 2005 07:37:08 AM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
All books prove themselves right or wrong.
...as usual for a relgionist you answer a question with an oblique indirect
statement. Now tell me how the bible can prove what is written in it?
Perusal of its contents.
I have done that and a lot of others have done so too
There is much in the Bible against which every
instinct of my being rebels, so much that I regret
the necessity which has compelled me to read it
through from beginning to end. I do not think that
the knowledge which I have gained of its history and
sources compensates me for the unpleasant details
its has forced upon my attention.
[Helen Keller (1880-1968)
The Story of My Life_ [1902], Chapter 21
Quoting others is not a conceptually relevant act.
More relevant than kneeling down, putting two hands together talking to something with no
existance.
How so?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
19 Jan 2005 09:29:25 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
All books prove themselves right or wrong.
...as usual for a relgionist you answer a question with an oblique indirect
statement. Now tell me how the bible can prove what is written in it?
Perusal of its contents.
I have done that and a lot of others have done so too
There is much in the Bible against which every
instinct of my being rebels, so much that I regret
the necessity which has compelled me to read it
through from beginning to end. I do not think that
the knowledge which I have gained of its history and
sources compensates me for the unpleasant details
its has forced upon my attention.
[Helen Keller (1880-1968)
The Story of My Life_ [1902], Chapter 21
Quoting others is not a conceptually relevant act.
More relevant than kneeling down, putting two hands together talking to something with no
existance.
How so?
....because billions have been doing it from the Time man could think and it has never yet
worked, not one single time.
Think about it!
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
20 Jan 2005 12:04:05 AM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
All books prove themselves right or wrong.
...as usual for a relgionist you answer a question with an oblique indirect
statement. Now tell me how the bible can prove what is written in it?
Perusal of its contents.
I have done that and a lot of others have done so too
There is much in the Bible against which every
instinct of my being rebels, so much that I regret
the necessity which has compelled me to read it
through from beginning to end. I do not think that
the knowledge which I have gained of its history and
sources compensates me for the unpleasant details
its has forced upon my attention.
[Helen Keller (1880-1968)
The Story of My Life_ [1902], Chapter 21
Quoting others is not a conceptually relevant act.
More relevant than kneeling down, putting two hands together talking to something with no
existance.
How so?
...because billions have been doing it from the Time man could think and it has never yet
worked, not one single time.
How do you know this?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
20 Jan 2005 05:04:13 AM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
All books prove themselves right or wrong.
...as usual for a relgionist you answer a question with an oblique indirect
statement. Now tell me how the bible can prove what is written in it?
Perusal of its contents.
I have done that and a lot of others have done so too
There is much in the Bible against which every
instinct of my being rebels, so much that I regret
the necessity which has compelled me to read it
through from beginning to end. I do not think that
the knowledge which I have gained of its history and
sources compensates me for the unpleasant details
its has forced upon my attention.
[Helen Keller (1880-1968)
The Story of My Life_ [1902], Chapter 21
Quoting others is not a conceptually relevant act.
More relevant than kneeling down, putting two hands together talking to something with no
existance.
How so?
...because billions have been doing it from the Time man could think and it has never yet
worked, not one single time.
How do you know this?
I know it because I use my brain, you should use yours and you will come to the same conclusion.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
20 Jan 2005 06:48:38 PM |
|
|
Smith Computer:
A religion is defined by a cause, principle, or activity pursued
with zeal
or conscientious devotion. Atheism has all of these.
LOL! So does Weight Watchers and the FBI. And so
do you, ironically. Your religion is trying to make
atheism a religion.
More to the point, you are being less than honest here.
Here is where you got that definition and notice the
ones you ignored to cherry pick it:
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or
institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a
spiritual leader.
4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or
conscientious devotion.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
o
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
20 Jan 2005 06:49:27 PM |
|
|
Smith Computer:
A religion is defined by a cause, principle, or activity pursued
with zeal
or conscientious devotion. Atheism has all of these.
LOL! So does Weight Watchers and the FBI. And so
do you, ironically. Your religion is trying to make
atheism a religion.
More to the point, you are being less than honest here.
Here is where you got that definition and notice the
ones you ignored to cherry pick it:
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or
institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a
spiritual leader.
4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or
conscientious devotion.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
o
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
20 Jan 2005 09:22:53 AM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
We now arrive at the point of insanity.
How can a book prove itself?
All books prove themselves right or wrong.
...as usual for a relgionist you answer a question with an oblique indirect
statement. Now tell me how the bible can prove what is written in it?
Perusal of its contents.
I have done that and a lot of others have done so too
There is much in the Bible against which every
instinct of my being rebels, so much that I regret
the necessity which has compelled me to read it
through from beginning to end. I do not think that
the knowledge which I have gained of its history and
sources compensates me for the unpleasant details
its has forced upon my attention.
[Helen Keller (1880-1968)
The Story of My Life_ [1902], Chapter 21
Quoting others is not a conceptually relevant act.
More relevant than kneeling down, putting two hands together talking to something with no
existance.
How so?
...because billions have been doing it from the Time man could think and it has never yet
worked, not one single time.
How do you know this?
I know it because I use my brain, you should use yours and you will come to the same conclusion.
"How do you know this?"
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
11 Jan 2005 11:22:15 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
Let me see....over 2,000 years ago someone writes down on a parchment that a
god spoke to him. No witnesses by the way. And we, 2000 years later use
these same written words to show that a god truly exists!!!!!!!
All it shows is that some humans are gullible
Bob
Humanist Brit
Hong Kong
"God and Satan alike are essentially human figures,
the one a projection of ourselves, the other of our enemies."
[Lord Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)]
..
Okay.
If you want God's word on the subject you need to go to
the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
Oh? Where (chapter and verse) does it say that those books, and only
those books, are 100% accurate and all others are "but the words of a
fallible man"?
De 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good,
and death and evil,
Is there something more 'accurate' that man can add or subtract
from that?... hardly.
After Moses, God spoke to no man.
Nowhere? I thought so.
You thought wrong.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
13 Jan 2005 02:31:10 AM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
Let me see....over 2,000 years ago someone writes down on a parchment that a
god spoke to him. No witnesses by the way. And we, 2000 years later use
these same written words to show that a god truly exists!!!!!!!
There were plenty of witnesses to the giving of the Five Books of Moses.
All it shows is that some humans are gullible
All humans are gullible... goes with the territory of being human.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
14 Jan 2005 05:11:26 AM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
Let me see....over 2,000 years ago someone writes down on a parchment that a
god spoke to him. No witnesses by the way. And we, 2000 years later use
these same written words to show that a god truly exists!!!!!!!
There were plenty of witnesses to the giving of the Five Books of Moses.
I refer, dear friend, as you well know, to the time when a god was supposed to
have spoken to Moses, mount araffat was it? 'No witnesses'.
All it shows is that some humans are gullible
All humans are gullible... goes with the territory of being human.
Gullibility will vary tremendously in any given sample of humans as will all the
other traits, pshycologists call it a Bell Curve, after plotting their results
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
14 Jan 2005 07:43:59 AM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
Let me see....over 2,000 years ago someone writes down on a parchment that a
god spoke to him. No witnesses by the way. And we, 2000 years later use
these same written words to show that a god truly exists!!!!!!!
There were plenty of witnesses to the giving of the Five Books of Moses.
I refer, dear friend, as you well know, to the time when a god was supposed to
have spoken to Moses, mount araffat was it? 'No witnesses'.
How do you summon the gaul to discuss a subject you are
completely ignorant of?
All it shows is that some humans are gullible
All humans are gullible... goes with the territory of being human.
Gullibility will vary tremendously in any given sample of humans as will all the
other traits, pshycologists call it a Bell Curve, after plotting their results
Yes, all humans are gullible.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
14 Jan 2005 11:58:21 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
Let me see....over 2,000 years ago someone writes down on a parchment that a
god spoke to him. No witnesses by the way. And we, 2000 years later use
these same written words to show that a god truly exists!!!!!!!
There were plenty of witnesses to the giving of the Five Books of Moses.
I refer, dear friend, as you well know, to the time when a god was supposed to
have spoken to Moses, mount araffat was it? 'No witnesses'.
How do you summon the gaul to discuss a subject you are
completely ignorant of?
no idea....Heeeeeelp!
All it shows is that some humans are gullible
All humans are gullible... goes with the territory of being human.
Gullibility will vary tremendously in any given sample of humans as will all the
other traits, pshycologists call it a Bell Curve, after plotting their results
Yes, all humans are gullible.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
15 Jan 2005 10:17:39 PM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
bob young wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peac | | | | | | |
