| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"SongBookz" |
| Date: |
16 Jun 2006 09:47:34 AM |
| Object: |
Re: If God Were Dead |
On 16 Jun 2006 04:05:01 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
SongBookz wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 00:21:02 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
SongBookz wrote:
If God Were Dead
"IF' ? you bloody fool.
There are thousands of gods, all of them imaginary
I posted this only to religious groups so you have nothing to complain
about other than you were just caught evangelizing your Athiest
Religion in religious groups.
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism
is human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious
mind cannot begin to understand.
And if you believe that, I have a couple bridges to sell.
The very fact that you were posting your atheistic proselytizing in
religious groups on threads that up-till-now had not been posted but
only to religious groups betrays the religious fervor of your
evangelism for an atheism that may or not be a religion to some, but
certainly, judging on your behavior, appears to be to you.
But, since you have invaded the religious groups with your
proselytizing, it's only fair to add alt.atheism to the conversation.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
.
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
16 Jun 2006 09:46:31 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2006 15:27:00 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Nemesis wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
It's interesting to me that you sneer at science while you post
messages using a tool created by scientists, the computer. You're a
hypocrite of the highest order, and YOU'RE worshipping YOURSELF, since
you think you've got it all figured out.
As far as hypocrites, I'll go you one better: self-proclaimed
"Christians" who worship the Bible (the book that's supposed to be a
guide to knowing better the God who wrote it) over and above God. The
catch-22 is that such "Christians" are idolators and become
narcissistic "Bible scientists" worshipping their knowledge of and
ability to decipher and dissect the Bible. Being a follower of Christ
is all about humility, faith, and submission to something that is not
tangible. Because it is easier, the Bible becomes the god of many
while God Almighty Himself is left out in the cold; i.e., knowing OF
God and really KNOWING God are not the same thing.
Naturally, I know the atheists reading this will balk at my analogy
since in their estimation God is non-existent. However, I think it's
important for atheists to realize that not all theists and Christians
are of the same ilk.
I understand what you're saying, and within the framework of
Christianity I guess they are hypocrites. But in that case, the only
harm done is between them and their (non-existent) God, so it really
doesn't bother me, and atheist, that much. But when a sanctimonious
hypocrite like Bob there stereotypes me and tells me what I think and
do, and projects his delusions onto me, then I'm going to speak up. I
think my hypocrites are worse than yours, but I know what you mean.
Neil,
My puter has been broke and I am reinstalling my software and have
missed some stuff. But lil ole me sanctimonious? Sanctified; but not
sanctimonious. Hypocrite. I am not acting. I say what I mean and
mean what I say. I do not remember saying that "Niel" thinks this or
that. Didn't I say something along the lines that atheism is a
religion? Yep. I did. Did I mean that? Yep. See, I say what I
mean. Could I be wrong? Not likely; but there is that ole
mathematical thing with random number generators so that it is
remotely possible that I could be wrong. I'm not God or an atheist
(anymore); so I can't be perfect.
You say you are an atheist. Fine. Atheists tell me to prove that God
exists. It's only fair, then that I should be able to suggest that an
atheist prove that atheism is not a religion and you will have a
problem doing that as long as "ism" is part of the word.
......
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
19 Jun 2006 10:16:41 AM |
|
|
Bible Bob wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 15:27:00 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Nemesis wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
It's interesting to me that you sneer at science while you post
messages using a tool created by scientists, the computer. You're a
hypocrite of the highest order, and YOU'RE worshipping YOURSELF, since
you think you've got it all figured out.
As far as hypocrites, I'll go you one better: self-proclaimed
"Christians" who worship the Bible (the book that's supposed to be a
guide to knowing better the God who wrote it) over and above God. The
catch-22 is that such "Christians" are idolators and become
narcissistic "Bible scientists" worshipping their knowledge of and
ability to decipher and dissect the Bible. Being a follower of Christ
is all about humility, faith, and submission to something that is not
tangible. Because it is easier, the Bible becomes the god of many
while God Almighty Himself is left out in the cold; i.e., knowing OF
God and really KNOWING God are not the same thing.
Naturally, I know the atheists reading this will balk at my analogy
since in their estimation God is non-existent. However, I think it's
important for atheists to realize that not all theists and Christians
are of the same ilk.
I understand what you're saying, and within the framework of
Christianity I guess they are hypocrites. But in that case, the only
harm done is between them and their (non-existent) God, so it really
doesn't bother me, and atheist, that much. But when a sanctimonious
hypocrite like Bob there stereotypes me and tells me what I think and
do, and projects his delusions onto me, then I'm going to speak up. I
think my hypocrites are worse than yours, but I know what you mean.
Neil,
My puter has been broke and I am reinstalling my software and have
missed some stuff. But lil ole me sanctimonious? Sanctified; but not
sanctimonious. Hypocrite. I am not acting. I say what I mean and
mean what I say. I do not remember saying that "Niel" thinks this or
that. Didn't I say something along the lines that atheism is a
religion? Yep. I did. Did I mean that? Yep. See, I say what I
mean. Could I be wrong? Not likely; but there is that ole
mathematical thing with random number generators so that it is
remotely possible that I could be wrong.
It's very revealing when someone plays question and answer with
themselves. In my experience, most people have trouble looking at
themselves objectively, and often when they describe themselves, they
describe the exact opposite of what others see.
I'm not God or an atheist
(anymore); so I can't be perfect.
I don't expect you to be perfect.
You say you are an atheist. Fine. Atheists tell me to prove that God
exists.
Which you haven't done.
It's only fair, then that I should be able to suggest that an
atheist prove that atheism is not a religion and you will have a
problem doing that as long as "ism" is part of the word.
Here we go. If you actually look up the word religion in a dictionary,
you will get several shades of meaning, including something like
"worshipping a deity" or "to participate in an activity with elevated
enthusiasm." You need to tell me which shade of meaning for the word
religion you are referring to. If it's the first case, obviously
atheists don't worship a deity. If it's the second case, maybe some
atheists have a religious fervour for their atheism, but not all, and
for those that do, so what? Either way, YOU are equivocating on the
word "religion," and that's dishonest, and that makes you a hypocrite,
and that makes you sanctimonious, what with your "moral superiority"
and all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
19 Jun 2006 02:09:48 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jun 2006 08:16:41 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bible Bob wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 15:27:00 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Nemesis wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
It's interesting to me that you sneer at science while you post
messages using a tool created by scientists, the computer. You're a
hypocrite of the highest order, and YOU'RE worshipping YOURSELF, since
you think you've got it all figured out.
As far as hypocrites, I'll go you one better: self-proclaimed
"Christians" who worship the Bible (the book that's supposed to be a
guide to knowing better the God who wrote it) over and above God. The
catch-22 is that such "Christians" are idolators and become
narcissistic "Bible scientists" worshipping their knowledge of and
ability to decipher and dissect the Bible. Being a follower of Christ
is all about humility, faith, and submission to something that is not
tangible. Because it is easier, the Bible becomes the god of many
while God Almighty Himself is left out in the cold; i.e., knowing OF
God and really KNOWING God are not the same thing.
Naturally, I know the atheists reading this will balk at my analogy
since in their estimation God is non-existent. However, I think it's
important for atheists to realize that not all theists and Christians
are of the same ilk.
I understand what you're saying, and within the framework of
Christianity I guess they are hypocrites. But in that case, the only
harm done is between them and their (non-existent) God, so it really
doesn't bother me, and atheist, that much. But when a sanctimonious
hypocrite like Bob there stereotypes me and tells me what I think and
do, and projects his delusions onto me, then I'm going to speak up. I
think my hypocrites are worse than yours, but I know what you mean.
Neil,
My puter has been broke and I am reinstalling my software and have
missed some stuff. But lil ole me sanctimonious? Sanctified; but not
sanctimonious. Hypocrite. I am not acting. I say what I mean and
mean what I say. I do not remember saying that "Niel" thinks this or
that. Didn't I say something along the lines that atheism is a
religion? Yep. I did. Did I mean that? Yep. See, I say what I
mean. Could I be wrong? Not likely; but there is that ole
mathematical thing with random number generators so that it is
remotely possible that I could be wrong.
It's very revealing when someone plays question and answer with
themselves. In my experience, most people have trouble looking at
themselves objectively, and often when they describe themselves, they
describe the exact opposite of what others see.
My puter is still messed up. But I can post between repairs.
That's a nice philosophy that you stated. I guess I can add it to my
collection of human philosophies which I store in my recycle bin.
I'm not God or an atheist
(anymore); so I can't be perfect.
I don't expect you to be perfect.
Thank you
You say you are an atheist. Fine. Atheists tell me to prove that God
exists.
Which you haven't done.
No need to. Why would I be that stupid? Why prove something to
someone who doesn't want to know? Why give ten dollars to someone
that has a million dollars and don't want my ten? See, I can
philosophize, too.
It's only fair, then that I should be able to suggest that an
atheist prove that atheism is not a religion and you will have a
problem doing that as long as "ism" is part of the word.
Here we go. If you actually look up the word religion in a dictionary,
you will get several shades of meaning, including something like
"worshipping a deity" or "to participate in an activity with elevated
enthusiasm." You need to tell me which shade of meaning for the word
religion you are referring to. If it's the first case, obviously
atheists don't worship a deity. If it's the second case, maybe some
atheists have a religious fervour for their atheism, but not all, and
for those that do, so what? Either way, YOU are equivocating on the
word "religion," and that's dishonest, and that makes you a hypocrite,
and that makes you sanctimonious, what with your "moral superiority"
and all.
Look. Let's cut to the chase so we don't waste each others time.
Your religion tells you to believe what you believe and my
non-religion doesn't tell me what to believe. My non-religion is
better than your religion. If you don't think so, ask me and I will
tell you that it is. It's all about "opinion". I am entitled to mine
and you are entitled to yours. I ain't changin' mine and you ain't
changin' yours (yet).
I am not behing dishonest. Atheists are the ones that play with the
meaning of words as I have illustrated in other parts of this thread.
You think what religion means to you and I will think what it means to
me.
What do I have to do to make atheists happy? Write a post that shows
what atheism really is? I could do that; but I won't because that is
not my job. I might put one together for Christians some day so that
they won't be tricked by dishonest atheists; but they already have the
Scriptures.
Bottom line is that I like people in general and don't give as much
credence to what they think as to what they do. If they are nice to
me, I am happy. If they are not nice to me, I am still happy because
my life is not ruled by the whims and behavior of other people.
......
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
20 Jun 2006 10:33:07 AM |
|
|
Bible Bob wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 08:16:41 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bible Bob wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 15:27:00 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Nemesis wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
It's interesting to me that you sneer at science while you post
messages using a tool created by scientists, the computer. You're a
hypocrite of the highest order, and YOU'RE worshipping YOURSELF, since
you think you've got it all figured out.
As far as hypocrites, I'll go you one better: self-proclaimed
"Christians" who worship the Bible (the book that's supposed to be a
guide to knowing better the God who wrote it) over and above God. The
catch-22 is that such "Christians" are idolators and become
narcissistic "Bible scientists" worshipping their knowledge of and
ability to decipher and dissect the Bible. Being a follower of Christ
is all about humility, faith, and submission to something that is not
tangible. Because it is easier, the Bible becomes the god of many
while God Almighty Himself is left out in the cold; i.e., knowing OF
God and really KNOWING God are not the same thing.
Naturally, I know the atheists reading this will balk at my analogy
since in their estimation God is non-existent. However, I think it's
important for atheists to realize that not all theists and Christians
are of the same ilk.
I understand what you're saying, and within the framework of
Christianity I guess they are hypocrites. But in that case, the only
harm done is between them and their (non-existent) God, so it really
doesn't bother me, and atheist, that much. But when a sanctimonious
hypocrite like Bob there stereotypes me and tells me what I think and
do, and projects his delusions onto me, then I'm going to speak up. I
think my hypocrites are worse than yours, but I know what you mean.
Neil,
My puter has been broke and I am reinstalling my software and have
missed some stuff. But lil ole me sanctimonious? Sanctified; but not
sanctimonious. Hypocrite. I am not acting. I say what I mean and
mean what I say. I do not remember saying that "Niel" thinks this or
that. Didn't I say something along the lines that atheism is a
religion? Yep. I did. Did I mean that? Yep. See, I say what I
mean. Could I be wrong? Not likely; but there is that ole
mathematical thing with random number generators so that it is
remotely possible that I could be wrong.
It's very revealing when someone plays question and answer with
themselves. In my experience, most people have trouble looking at
themselves objectively, and often when they describe themselves, they
describe the exact opposite of what others see.
My puter is still messed up. But I can post between repairs.
That's a nice philosophy that you stated. I guess I can add it to my
collection of human philosophies which I store in my recycle bin.
I'm not God or an atheist
(anymore); so I can't be perfect.
I don't expect you to be perfect.
Thank you
You say you are an atheist. Fine. Atheists tell me to prove that God
exists.
Which you haven't done.
No need to. Why would I be that stupid? Why prove something to
someone who doesn't want to know?
That's hilarious. Atheists constantly ask for evidence of your claim,
and you complain that atheists don't want evidence. From where I sit,
you're dodging the question, making you even more dishonest than
before.
Why give ten dollars to someone
that has a million dollars and don't want my ten? See, I can
philosophize, too.
Not very well.
It's only fair, then that I should be able to suggest that an
atheist prove that atheism is not a religion and you will have a
problem doing that as long as "ism" is part of the word.
I already did in another thread. No matter which shade of meaning you
want to use, atheism is not a religion. Unless we're using Bible Bob's
Handy Dandy Book of Spontaneous Definitions.
Here we go. If you actually look up the word religion in a dictionary,
you will get several shades of meaning, including something like
"worshipping a deity" or "to participate in an activity with elevated
enthusiasm." You need to tell me which shade of meaning for the word
religion you are referring to. If it's the first case, obviously
atheists don't worship a deity. If it's the second case, maybe some
atheists have a religious fervour for their atheism, but not all, and
for those that do, so what? Either way, YOU are equivocating on the
word "religion," and that's dishonest, and that makes you a hypocrite,
and that makes you sanctimonious, what with your "moral superiority"
and all.
Look. Let's cut to the chase so we don't waste each others time.
Your religion tells you to believe what you believe and my
non-religion doesn't tell me what to believe.
You just wasted my time. You keep insisting I have a religion when I
don't. That's fairly rude.
My non-religion is
better than your religion. If you don't think so, ask me and I will
tell you that it is. It's all about "opinion".
The existence of an all-powerful invisible guy who you claim is going
to condemn me to eternal torture is not a matter of opinion. You think
your belief is just an opinion? Your god either exists or it doesn't,
cough up some evidence or you'll look like a fool.
I am entitled to mine
and you are entitled to yours. I ain't changin' mine and you ain't
changin' yours (yet).
Dishonest sophists like you make me even more convinced (if that's
possible) that God is a mass delusion.
I am not behing dishonest. Atheists are the ones that play with the
meaning of words as I have illustrated in other parts of this thread.
You've only illustrated your own intentional and unintentional
dishonesty with language.
You think what religion means to you and I will think what it means to
me.
What do I have to do to make atheists happy? Write a post that shows
what atheism really is? I could do that; but I won't because that is
not my job.
What job? It's not a job. No one hired you. You already told us what
atheism is (it's apparently a religion). If you weren't lying about me
I'd have left you alone. Now I think I'll frequent free.christians and
keep you honest.
I might put one together for Christians some day so that
they won't be tricked by dishonest atheists; but they already have the
Scriptures.
Bottom line is that I like people in general and don't give as much
credence to what they think as to what they do. If they are nice to
me, I am happy. If they are not nice to me, I am still happy because
my life is not ruled by the whims and behavior of other people.
Totally irrelevant. Now I'll check out your web site.
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
21 Jun 2006 12:00:43 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jun 2006 08:33:07 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bible Bob wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 08:16:41 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bible Bob wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 15:27:00 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Nemesis wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
It's interesting to me that you sneer at science while you post
messages using a tool created by scientists, the computer. You're a
hypocrite of the highest order, and YOU'RE worshipping YOURSELF, since
you think you've got it all figured out.
As far as hypocrites, I'll go you one better: self-proclaimed
"Christians" who worship the Bible (the book that's supposed to be a
guide to knowing better the God who wrote it) over and above God. The
catch-22 is that such "Christians" are idolators and become
narcissistic "Bible scientists" worshipping their knowledge of and
ability to decipher and dissect the Bible. Being a follower of Christ
is all about humility, faith, and submission to something that is not
tangible. Because it is easier, the Bible becomes the god of many
while God Almighty Himself is left out in the cold; i.e., knowing OF
God and really KNOWING God are not the same thing.
Naturally, I know the atheists reading this will balk at my analogy
since in their estimation God is non-existent. However, I think it's
important for atheists to realize that not all theists and Christians
are of the same ilk.
I understand what you're saying, and within the framework of
Christianity I guess they are hypocrites. But in that case, the only
harm done is between them and their (non-existent) God, so it really
doesn't bother me, and atheist, that much. But when a sanctimonious
hypocrite like Bob there stereotypes me and tells me what I think and
do, and projects his delusions onto me, then I'm going to speak up. I
think my hypocrites are worse than yours, but I know what you mean.
Neil,
My puter has been broke and I am reinstalling my software and have
missed some stuff. But lil ole me sanctimonious? Sanctified; but not
sanctimonious. Hypocrite. I am not acting. I say what I mean and
mean what I say. I do not remember saying that "Niel" thinks this or
that. Didn't I say something along the lines that atheism is a
religion? Yep. I did. Did I mean that? Yep. See, I say what I
mean. Could I be wrong? Not likely; but there is that ole
mathematical thing with random number generators so that it is
remotely possible that I could be wrong.
It's very revealing when someone plays question and answer with
themselves. In my experience, most people have trouble looking at
themselves objectively, and often when they describe themselves, they
describe the exact opposite of what others see.
My puter is still messed up. But I can post between repairs.
That's a nice philosophy that you stated. I guess I can add it to my
collection of human philosophies which I store in my recycle bin.
I'm not God or an atheist
(anymore); so I can't be perfect.
I don't expect you to be perfect.
Thank you
You say you are an atheist. Fine. Atheists tell me to prove that God
exists.
Which you haven't done.
No need to. Why would I be that stupid? Why prove something to
someone who doesn't want to know?
That's hilarious. Atheists constantly ask for evidence of your claim,
and you complain that atheists don't want evidence. From where I sit,
you're dodging the question, making you even more dishonest than
before.
If they wanted to know, they would respond like they wanted to know.
It would take a lot of time to put together accurate detailed
responses. I don't have time to waste putting together stuff that
will be rejected out of hand. Been there done that many times.
Why give ten dollars to someone
that has a million dollars and don't want my ten? See, I can
philosophize, too.
Not very well.
Thank you for the compliment.
It's only fair, then that I should be able to suggest that an
atheist prove that atheism is not a religion and you will have a
problem doing that as long as "ism" is part of the word.
I already did in another thread. No matter which shade of meaning you
want to use, atheism is not a religion. Unless we're using Bible Bob's
Handy Dandy Book of Spontaneous Definitions.
Ooo! I like that title. I think I will get to work on that. It will
be a best seller. I also handled your response in the other thread.
Denial is a symptom of atheists religion.
Here we go. If you actually look up the word religion in a dictionary,
you will get several shades of meaning, including something like
"worshipping a deity" or "to participate in an activity with elevated
enthusiasm." You need to tell me which shade of meaning for the word
religion you are referring to. If it's the first case, obviously
atheists don't worship a deity. If it's the second case, maybe some
atheists have a religious fervour for their atheism, but not all, and
for those that do, so what? Either way, YOU are equivocating on the
word "religion," and that's dishonest, and that makes you a hypocrite,
and that makes you sanctimonious, what with your "moral superiority"
and all.
Look. Let's cut to the chase so we don't waste each others time.
Your religion tells you to believe what you believe and my
non-religion doesn't tell me what to believe.
You just wasted my time. You keep insisting I have a religion when I
don't. That's fairly rude.
Finally, you are starting to understand. I am also the subject of
rudity. People with a religion diferent from mine attack me for my
non-religion. Who says atheism is not a religion? Atheists. What do
other people call atheism? A religion. People who study the
Scriptures ay they are true. People who don't want the Scriptures to
be true say they are not true and work hard to find garbage to use to
prove they are not true.
My non-religion is
better than your religion. If you don't think so, ask me and I will
tell you that it is. It's all about "opinion".
The existence of an all-powerful invisible guy who you claim is going
to condemn me to eternal torture is not a matter of opinion. You think
your belief is just an opinion? Your god either exists or it doesn't,
cough up some evidence or you'll look like a fool.
Woa! Wait a minute. I don't preach no crap about eternal torture,
etc. Wackos do that. Why would having an opinion cause someone to
look like a fool? To whom? Some low intelligence fool whose opinion
doesn't matter (NOT referring to you). I don't need to prove
anything; except to myself. The whole point of this exercise is that
"I" run me and "you" run you.
I am entitled to mine
and you are entitled to yours. I ain't changin' mine and you ain't
changin' yours (yet).
Dishonest sophists like you make me even more convinced (if that's
possible) that God is a mass delusion.
That's up to you. You can think what you want about me and if I am so
powerful that I am able to make you not believe in God; then I must
also be powerful enough to swing you the other way. I prefer to think
that you will think what you want to think.
I am not behing dishonest. Atheists are the ones that play with the
meaning of words as I have illustrated in other parts of this thread.
You've only illustrated your own intentional and unintentional
dishonesty with language.
No. Not dishonesty. Thre is no intent to deceive; just to illustrate
how silly the whole mess is.
You think what religion means to you and I will think what it means to
me.
What do I have to do to make atheists happy? Write a post that shows
what atheism really is? I could do that; but I won't because that is
not my job.
What job? It's not a job. No one hired you. You already told us what
atheism is (it's apparently a religion). If you weren't lying about me
I'd have left you alone. Now I think I'll frequent free.christians and
keep you honest.
Kewl! I have succeeded where jason and Bible John failed (that's a
joke).
Seriously, please do hang out here. I enjoy converating with
intelligent people. The problem is that when one is responding to ten
or fifteen people at the same time; quality suffers.
I might put one together for Christians some day so that
they won't be tricked by dishonest atheists; but they already have the
Scriptures.
Bottom line is that I like people in general and don't give as much
credence to what they think as to what they do. If they are nice to
me, I am happy. If they are not nice to me, I am still happy because
my life is not ruled by the whims and behavior of other people.
Totally irrelevant. Now I'll check out your web site.
Okay. Take what you want from the free stuff.
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
......
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
21 Jun 2006 04:43:41 PM |
|
|
Bible Bob wrote:
On 20 Jun 2006 08:33:07 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bible Bob wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 08:16:41 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bible Bob wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 15:27:00 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Nemesis wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
It's interesting to me that you sneer at science while you post
messages using a tool created by scientists, the computer. You're a
hypocrite of the highest order, and YOU'RE worshipping YOURSELF, since
you think you've got it all figured out.
As far as hypocrites, I'll go you one better: self-proclaimed
"Christians" who worship the Bible (the book that's supposed to be a
guide to knowing better the God who wrote it) over and above God. The
catch-22 is that such "Christians" are idolators and become
narcissistic "Bible scientists" worshipping their knowledge of and
ability to decipher and dissect the Bible. Being a follower of Christ
is all about humility, faith, and submission to something that is not
tangible. Because it is easier, the Bible becomes the god of many
while God Almighty Himself is left out in the cold; i.e., knowing OF
God and really KNOWING God are not the same thing.
Naturally, I know the atheists reading this will balk at my analogy
since in their estimation God is non-existent. However, I think it's
important for atheists to realize that not all theists and Christians
are of the same ilk.
I understand what you're saying, and within the framework of
Christianity I guess they are hypocrites. But in that case, the only
harm done is between them and their (non-existent) God, so it really
doesn't bother me, and atheist, that much. But when a sanctimonious
hypocrite like Bob there stereotypes me and tells me what I think and
do, and projects his delusions onto me, then I'm going to speak up. I
think my hypocrites are worse than yours, but I know what you mean.
Neil,
My puter has been broke and I am reinstalling my software and have
missed some stuff. But lil ole me sanctimonious? Sanctified; but not
sanctimonious. Hypocrite. I am not acting. I say what I mean and
mean what I say. I do not remember saying that "Niel" thinks this or
that. Didn't I say something along the lines that atheism is a
religion? Yep. I did. Did I mean that? Yep. See, I say what I
mean. Could I be wrong? Not likely; but there is that ole
mathematical thing with random number generators so that it is
remotely possible that I could be wrong.
It's very revealing when someone plays question and answer with
themselves. In my experience, most people have trouble looking at
themselves objectively, and often when they describe themselves, they
describe the exact opposite of what others see.
My puter is still messed up. But I can post between repairs.
That's a nice philosophy that you stated. I guess I can add it to my
collection of human philosophies which I store in my recycle bin.
I'm not God or an atheist
(anymore); so I can't be perfect.
I don't expect you to be perfect.
Thank you
You say you are an atheist. Fine. Atheists tell me to prove that God
exists.
Which you haven't done.
No need to. Why would I be that stupid? Why prove something to
someone who doesn't want to know?
That's hilarious. Atheists constantly ask for evidence of your claim,
and you complain that atheists don't want evidence. From where I sit,
you're dodging the question, making you even more dishonest than
before.
If they wanted to know, they would respond like they wanted to know.
We do. We say "show us some evidence for your claim." Translated into
English, that means we want to know. Your answer below is just another
dodge. Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
It would take a lot of time to put together accurate detailed
responses. I don't have time to waste putting together stuff that
will be rejected out of hand. Been there done that many times.
You're not putting together an answer because you can't; there is no
evidence for your god. Your evasion is obvious.
Why give ten dollars to someone
that has a million dollars and don't want my ten? See, I can
philosophize, too.
Not very well.
Thank you for the compliment.
It's only fair, then that I should be able to suggest that an
atheist prove that atheism is not a religion and you will have a
problem doing that as long as "ism" is part of the word.
I already did in another thread. No matter which shade of meaning you
want to use, atheism is not a religion. Unless we're using Bible Bob's
Handy Dandy Book of Spontaneous Definitions.
Ooo! I like that title. I think I will get to work on that. It will
be a best seller. I also handled your response in the other thread.
Denial is a symptom of atheists religion.
You ego is so inflated you think anyone who disagrees with you must be
in denial...sometimes your just plain mistake.
Here we go. If you actually look up the word religion in a dictionary,
you will get several shades of meaning, including something like
"worshipping a deity" or "to participate in an activity with elevated
enthusiasm." You need to tell me which shade of meaning for the word
religion you are referring to. If it's the first case, obviously
atheists don't worship a deity. If it's the second case, maybe some
atheists have a religious fervour for their atheism, but not all, and
for those that do, so what? Either way, YOU are equivocating on the
word "religion," and that's dishonest, and that makes you a hypocrite,
and that makes you sanctimonious, what with your "moral superiority"
and all.
Look. Let's cut to the chase so we don't waste each others time.
Your religion tells you to believe what you believe and my
non-religion doesn't tell me what to believe.
You just wasted my time. You keep insisting I have a religion when I
don't. That's fairly rude.
Finally, you are starting to understand. I am also the subject of
rudity. People with a religion diferent from mine attack me for my
non-religion. Who says atheism is not a religion? Atheists.
The only people who claim atheism IS a religion is dishonest theists
like you. I can find plenty of more honest theists who would laugh at
you for claiming atheism is a religion. They're the educated ones. It's
fairly obvious you just say "atheism is a religion" because you think
it makes atheists backpeddle and that you are winning some kind of
argument. The only thing you're really showing is your lack of
comprehension.
What do
other people call atheism? A religion. People who study the
Scriptures ay they are true. People who don't want the Scriptures to
be true say they are not true and work hard to find garbage to use to
prove they are not true.
Your paranoia is showing. I personally am neutral about your scriptures
(and everyone else's holy writings), except in a historical context.
All I ask is that you people, who are madly waving your arms around
claiming there is a god of some sort, come up with some actual evidence
for it. I don't see it, hear it, feel it, smell it; where is it?
My non-religion is
better than your religion. If you don't think so, ask me and I will
tell you that it is. It's all about "opinion".
The existence of an all-powerful invisible guy who you claim is going
to condemn me to eternal torture is not a matter of opinion. You think
your belief is just an opinion? Your god either exists or it doesn't,
cough up some evidence or you'll look like a fool.
Woa! Wait a minute. I don't preach no crap about eternal torture,
etc. Wackos do that. Why would having an opinion cause someone to
look like a fool?
Do I really have to come up with an example or can you figure that out
for yourself? How about, someone sho claims the Holocaust didn't
happen. And I apologize for assuming you believe in Hell. What do you
think happens to atheists when they die?
To whom? Some low intelligence fool whose opinion
doesn't matter (NOT referring to you).
If somone's opinion runs contrary to fact then they can appear foolish.
Especially obvious facts.
I don't need to prove
anything; except to myself. The whole point of this exercise is that
"I" run me and "you" run you.
Disagree. The whole point started out being that you claim atheism is a
religion. Who runs who is irrelevant.
I am entitled to mine
and you are entitled to yours. I ain't changin' mine and you ain't
changin' yours (yet).
Dishonest sophists like you make me even more convinced (if that's
possible) that God is a mass delusion.
That's up to you. You can think what you want about me and if I am so
powerful that I am able to make you not believe in God; then I must
also be powerful enough to swing you the other way.
You didn't read for comprehension once again. I said you "make me even
more convinced " there is no God. That means I am already convinced by
the lack of evidence, the fact that god (etc) violates all laws of
physics, and that people have come up with rational explanations for
things (complete with actual evidence!) that makes the Bible and other
holy writings obsolete.
I prefer to think
that you will think what you want to think.
If I think something, and someone comes along who makes a whole lot of
sense, I'd change what I think in a nanosecond.
I am not behing dishonest. Atheists are the ones that play with the
meaning of words as I have illustrated in other parts of this thread.
You've only illustrated your own intentional and unintentional
dishonesty with language.
No. Not dishonesty. Thre is no intent to deceive; just to illustrate
how silly the whole mess is.
I don't believe you at all.
You think what religion means to you and I will think what it means to
me.
What do I have to do to make atheists happy? Write a post that shows
what atheism really is? I could do that; but I won't because that is
not my job.
What job? It's not a job. No one hired you. You already told us what
atheism is (it's apparently a religion). If you weren't lying about me
I'd have left you alone. Now I think I'll frequent free.christians and
keep you honest.
Kewl! I have succeeded where jason and Bible John failed (that's a
joke).
Seriously, please do hang out here. I enjoy converating with
intelligent people. The problem is that when one is responding to ten
or fifteen people at the same time; quality suffers.
Thanks. I'm dumb as hell though.
I might put one together for Christians some day so that
they won't be tricked by dishonest atheists; but they already have the
Scriptures.
Bottom line is that I like people in general and don't give as much
credence to what they think as to what they do. If they are nice to
me, I am happy. If they are not nice to me, I am still happy because
my life is not ruled by the whims and behavior of other people.
Totally irrelevant. Now I'll check out your web site.
Okay. Take what you want from the free stuff.
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
20 Jun 2006 04:39:23 AM |
|
|
Bible Bob wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 08:16:41 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
snip
You say you are an atheist. Fine. Atheists tell me to prove that God
exists.
Which you haven't done.
No need to. Why would I be that stupid? Why prove something to
someone who doesn't want to know? Why give ten dollars to someone
that has a million dollars and don't want my ten? See, I can
philosophize, too.
And, as you do above, you can claim to read minds.
snip
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
19 Jun 2006 10:55:39 AM |
|
|
Bible Bob wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 15:27:00 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Nemesis wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
It's interesting to me that you sneer at science while you post
messages using a tool created by scientists, the computer. You're a
hypocrite of the highest order, and YOU'RE worshipping YOURSELF, since
you think you've got it all figured out.
As far as hypocrites, I'll go you one better: self-proclaimed
"Christians" who worship the Bible (the book that's supposed to be a
guide to knowing better the God who wrote it) over and above God. The
catch-22 is that such "Christians" are idolators and become
narcissistic "Bible scientists" worshipping their knowledge of and
ability to decipher and dissect the Bible. Being a follower of Christ
is all about humility, faith, and submission to something that is not
tangible. Because it is easier, the Bible becomes the god of many
while God Almighty Himself is left out in the cold; i.e., knowing OF
God and really KNOWING God are not the same thing.
Naturally, I know the atheists reading this will balk at my analogy
since in their estimation God is non-existent. However, I think it's
important for atheists to realize that not all theists and Christians
are of the same ilk.
I understand what you're saying, and within the framework of
Christianity I guess they are hypocrites. But in that case, the only
harm done is between them and their (non-existent) God, so it really
doesn't bother me, and atheist, that much. But when a sanctimonious
hypocrite like Bob there stereotypes me and tells me what I think and
do, and projects his delusions onto me, then I'm going to speak up. I
think my hypocrites are worse than yours, but I know what you mean.
Neil,
My puter has been broke and I am reinstalling my software and have
missed some stuff. But lil ole me sanctimonious? Sanctified; but not
sanctimonious. Hypocrite. I am not acting. I say what I mean and
mean what I say. I do not remember saying that "Niel" thinks this or
that. Didn't I say something along the lines that atheism is a
religion? Yep. I did. Did I mean that? Yep. See, I say what I
mean. Could I be wrong? Not likely; but there is that ole
mathematical thing with random number generators so that it is
remotely possible that I could be wrong. I'm not God or an atheist
(anymore); so I can't be perfect.
You say you are an atheist. Fine. Atheists tell me to prove that God
exists. It's only fair, then that I should be able to suggest that an
atheist prove that atheism is not a religion and you will have a
problem doing that as long as "ism" is part of the word.
Oh yeah, I forgot to address the "ism" remark.
Would industriasts also have a hard time proving atheism is not a
religion, since industrialism is also an "ism." How about Capitalists?
Socialists? And what about vegetarians? Senilism is a word, are you
going to make senile people prove atheism is not a religion? Get the
point? The suffix "ism" does not mean "religion." Want to review your
self-assessment above about how often you're wrong? Or are you going to
entrench yourself deeper into equivocationism?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
19 Jun 2006 01:58:03 PM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
Bible Bob wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 15:27:00 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Nemesis wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
It's interesting to me that you sneer at science while you post
messages using a tool created by scientists, the computer. You're a
hypocrite of the highest order, and YOU'RE worshipping YOURSELF, since
you think you've got it all figured out.
As far as hypocrites, I'll go you one better: self-proclaimed
"Christians" who worship the Bible (the book that's supposed to be a
guide to knowing better the God who wrote it) over and above God. The
catch-22 is that such "Christians" are idolators and become
narcissistic "Bible scientists" worshipping their knowledge of and
ability to decipher and dissect the Bible. Being a follower of Christ
is all about humility, faith, and submission to something that is not
tangible. Because it is easier, the Bible becomes the god of many
while God Almighty Himself is left out in the cold; i.e., knowing OF
God and really KNOWING God are not the same thing.
Naturally, I know the atheists reading this will balk at my analogy
since in their estimation God is non-existent. However, I think it's
important for atheists to realize that not all theists and Christians
are of the same ilk.
I understand what you're saying, and within the framework of
Christianity I guess they are hypocrites. But in that case, the only
harm done is between them and their (non-existent) God, so it really
doesn't bother me, and atheist, that much. But when a sanctimonious
hypocrite like Bob there stereotypes me and tells me what I think and
do, and projects his delusions onto me, then I'm going to speak up. I
think my hypocrites are worse than yours, but I know what you mean.
Neil,
My puter has been broke and I am reinstalling my software and have
missed some stuff. But lil ole me sanctimonious? Sanctified; but not
sanctimonious. Hypocrite. I am not acting. I say what I mean and
mean what I say. I do not remember saying that "Niel" thinks this or
that. Didn't I say something along the lines that atheism is a
religion? Yep. I did. Did I mean that? Yep. See, I say what I
mean. Could I be wrong? Not likely; but there is that ole
mathematical thing with random number generators so that it is
remotely possible that I could be wrong. I'm not God or an atheist
(anymore); so I can't be perfect.
You say you are an atheist. Fine. Atheists tell me to prove that God
exists. It's only fair, then that I should be able to suggest that an
atheist prove that atheism is not a religion and you will have a
problem doing that as long as "ism" is part of the word.
Oh yeah, I forgot to address the "ism" remark.
Would industriasts also have a hard time proving atheism is not a
religion, since industrialism is also an "ism." How about Capitalists?
Socialists? And what about vegetarians? Senilism is a word, are you
going to make senile people prove atheism is not a religion? Get the
point? The suffix "ism" does not mean "religion." Want to review your
self-assessment above about how often you're wrong? Or are you going to
entrench yourself deeper into equivocationism?
Seminal fluid is apparently a religion as well.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
19 Jun 2006 02:11:46 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jun 2006 08:55:39 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bible Bob wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 15:27:00 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Nemesis wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
It's interesting to me that you sneer at science while you post
messages using a tool created by scientists, the computer. You're a
hypocrite of the highest order, and YOU'RE worshipping YOURSELF, since
you think you've got it all figured out.
As far as hypocrites, I'll go you one better: self-proclaimed
"Christians" who worship the Bible (the book that's supposed to be a
guide to knowing better the God who wrote it) over and above God. The
catch-22 is that such "Christians" are idolators and become
narcissistic "Bible scientists" worshipping their knowledge of and
ability to decipher and dissect the Bible. Being a follower of Christ
is all about humility, faith, and submission to something that is not
tangible. Because it is easier, the Bible becomes the god of many
while God Almighty Himself is left out in the cold; i.e., knowing OF
God and really KNOWING God are not the same thing.
Naturally, I know the atheists reading this will balk at my analogy
since in their estimation God is non-existent. However, I think it's
important for atheists to realize that not all theists and Christians
are of the same ilk.
I understand what you're saying, and within the framework of
Christianity I guess they are hypocrites. But in that case, the only
harm done is between them and their (non-existent) God, so it really
doesn't bother me, and atheist, that much. But when a sanctimonious
hypocrite like Bob there stereotypes me and tells me what I think and
do, and projects his delusions onto me, then I'm going to speak up. I
think my hypocrites are worse than yours, but I know what you mean.
Neil,
My puter has been broke and I am reinstalling my software and have
missed some stuff. But lil ole me sanctimonious? Sanctified; but not
sanctimonious. Hypocrite. I am not acting. I say what I mean and
mean what I say. I do not remember saying that "Niel" thinks this or
that. Didn't I say something along the lines that atheism is a
religion? Yep. I did. Did I mean that? Yep. See, I say what I
mean. Could I be wrong? Not likely; but there is that ole
mathematical thing with random number generators so that it is
remotely possible that I could be wrong. I'm not God or an atheist
(anymore); so I can't be perfect.
You say you are an atheist. Fine. Atheists tell me to prove that God
exists. It's only fair, then that I should be able to suggest that an
atheist prove that atheism is not a religion and you will have a
problem doing that as long as "ism" is part of the word.
Oh yeah, I forgot to address the "ism" remark.
Would industriasts also have a hard time proving atheism is not a
religion, since industrialism is also an "ism." How about Capitalists?
Socialists? And what about vegetarians? Senilism is a word, are you
going to make senile people prove atheism is not a religion? Get the
point? The suffix "ism" does not mean "religion." Want to review your
self-assessment above about how often you're wrong? Or are you going to
entrench yourself deeper into equivocationism?
I know. It refers to a belief system the produces behavior.
Industrialism can become a religion to an industrialist.
......
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
19 Jun 2006 05:00:06 PM |
|
|
Bible Bob wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 08:55:39 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bible Bob wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 15:27:00 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Nemesis wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
It's interesting to me that you sneer at science while you post
messages using a tool created by scientists, the computer. You're a
hypocrite of the highest order, and YOU'RE worshipping YOURSELF, since
you think you've got it all figured out.
As far as hypocrites, I'll go you one better: self-proclaimed
"Christians" who worship the Bible (the book that's supposed to be a
guide to knowing better the God who wrote it) over and above God. The
catch-22 is that such "Christians" are idolators and become
narcissistic "Bible scientists" worshipping their knowledge of and
ability to decipher and dissect the Bible. Being a follower of Christ
is all about humility, faith, and submission to something that is not
tangible. Because it is easier, the Bible becomes the god of many
while God Almighty Himself is left out in the cold; i.e., knowing OF
God and really KNOWING God are not the same thing.
Naturally, I know the atheists reading this will balk at my analogy
since in their estimation God is non-existent. However, I think it's
important for atheists to realize that not all theists and Christians
are of the same ilk.
I understand what you're saying, and within the framework of
Christianity I guess they are hypocrites. But in that case, the only
harm done is between them and their (non-existent) God, so it really
doesn't bother me, and atheist, that much. But when a sanctimonious
hypocrite like Bob there stereotypes me and tells me what I think and
do, and projects his delusions onto me, then I'm going to speak up. I
think my hypocrites are worse than yours, but I know what you mean.
Neil,
My puter has been broke and I am reinstalling my software and have
missed some stuff. But lil ole me sanctimonious? Sanctified; but not
sanctimonious. Hypocrite. I am not acting. I say what I mean and
mean what I say. I do not remember saying that "Niel" thinks this or
that. Didn't I say something along the lines that atheism is a
religion? Yep. I did. Did I mean that? Yep. See, I say what I
mean. Could I be wrong? Not likely; but there is that ole
mathematical thing with random number generators so that it is
remotely possible that I could be wrong. I'm not God or an atheist
(anymore); so I can't be perfect.
You say you are an atheist. Fine. Atheists tell me to prove that God
exists. It's only fair, then that I should be able to suggest that an
atheist prove that atheism is not a religion and you will have a
problem doing that as long as "ism" is part of the word.
Oh yeah, I forgot to address the "ism" remark.
Would industriasts also have a hard time proving atheism is not a
religion, since industrialism is also an "ism." How about Capitalists?
Socialists? And what about vegetarians? Senilism is a word, are you
going to make senile people prove atheism is not a religion? Get the
point? The suffix "ism" does not mean "religion." Want to review your
self-assessment above about how often you're wrong? Or are you going to
entrench yourself deeper into equivocationism?
I know. It refers to a belief system the produces behavior.
Industrialism can become a religion to an industrialist.
If you want to redefine the word religion to include every "ism" then
okay, industrialism is a religion and all industrialists are religious;
senilism is a religion and all senile people are religious (maybe
that's a prerequisite, come to think of it); puerilism is a religion
and all puerile people are religious, vegetarianism is a religion and
all vegetarians are religious. Personally, I prefer to use a
dictionary, then langauge makes so much more sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nemesis" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
19 Jun 2006 05:12:43 PM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
If you want to redefine the word religion to include every "ism" then
okay, industrialism is a religion and all industrialists are religious;
senilism is a religion and all senile people are religious (maybe
that's a prerequisite, come to think of it); puerilism is a religion
and all puerile people are religious, vegetarianism is a religion and
all vegetarians are religious. Personally, I prefer to use a
dictionary, then langauge makes so much more sense.
How about looking at it like this:
Industrialism is comprised of those who religiously adhere to industry.
Puerilism is comprised of those who religiously adhere to being
puerile.
Vegetarianism is comprised of those who religiously adhere to being
vegetarian.
Senilism - is that even a word? Were you thinking of senility? I
don't think senility is an "ism", is it? ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
19 Jun 2006 05:41:29 PM |
|
|
Nemesis wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
If you want to redefine the word religion to include every "ism" then
okay, industrialism is a religion and all industrialists are religious;
senilism is a religion and all senile people are religious (maybe
that's a prerequisite, come to think of it); puerilism is a religion
and all puerile people are religious, vegetarianism is a religion and
all vegetarians are religious. Personally, I prefer to use a
dictionary, then langauge makes so much more sense.
How about looking at it like this:
Industrialism is comprised of those who religiously adhere to industry.
Puerilism is comprised of those who religiously adhere to being
puerile.
Vegetarianism is comprised of those who religiously adhere to being
vegetarian.
Senilism - is that even a word? Were you thinking of senility? I
don't think senility is an "ism", is it? ;-)
Yes it is. When I looked up "ism" on dictionary.com that came up.
Anyway, what you are saying is what I was saying. Religion can be used
in the sense of something someone participates in enthusiatically, like
cheering for a football team, but that is not to be confused with
religion in the sense of worshipping a deity. "Bible Bob" equivocates
on those meanings on a regular basis when he calls atheism a "religion."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
16 Jun 2006 09:18:20 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2006 14:49:14 -0700, "Nemesis" <ontheskagit@verizon.net>
wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
It's interesting to me that you sneer at science while you post
messages using a tool created by scientists, the computer. You're a
hypocrite of the highest order, and YOU'RE worshipping YOURSELF, since
you think you've got it all figured out.
As far as hypocrites, I'll go you one better: self-proclaimed
"Christians" who worship the Bible (the book that's supposed to be a
guide to knowing better the God who wrote it) over and above God.
Self proclaimed is sorta kinda necessary isn't it. One must confess
Jesus as Lord and believe that God raised Jesus from the dead to be
saved. Assume that the Christian that self proclaims that he is a
Christian. Is that wrong? Assume that the Christian whether self
proclaimed or not worships the "Bible;" would that be wrong? The
essential meaning of worship is obedience. "Bible" is a misnomer for
a collection of books in a cannonized text and there are errors of
different kinds in "Bibles" that make those portions unworthy of
worship. However, the Scriptures (conained in the Bibles) do not say
that the Scriptures are a "guide." The Scriptures contain the laws
and laws are to be obeyed. Thou shalt not murder is not a guide; it
is a law.
God chose the Scriptures to make known Himself, His nature, and His
laws to His people. He magnified His word above His name underwriting
signing the check and submitting Himself to His own word which He
revealed in Scripture. That's called leading by example. So, while
the Scriptures are not to be worshipped in the same way that God is
worshipped they are to be obeyed in the same way God is obeyed because
the Scriptures are God's words and will.
Those that want to be saved and sinner at the same time will water
down and rationalize the significance of the Scriptures. Out of one
side of their mouth the Scriptures are the love and power of God and
out of the other side of the mouth the Scriptues don't apply to that
person's particulat sin; just other people's sins. But, then, people
aren't just; but God is just.
I did see a college professor on the NationalGeographic channel last
night talking about Exodus or Doomesday or something who stated that
the "Bible" was "literal" in the sense of no figurative language is
used in the Bible. That's all he said about it but as a religious
college professor one would think he would heard of a parable or an
allegory or a proverb which are mentioned by name in the "Bible." I
would consider that worshipping the "Bible" a man made book over and
above God.
So there are those who are pretenders who are self proclaimed
Christians who refer to those portions of the Scriptures that they
don't like as "guidelines" while those that apply to the sins of
others are "law". Then there are those who worship the Bible over and
above God and both are those who worship the creation (self
gratification and the works of man) over and above God. Then there is
the third type which we can call for the sake of classification the
Bible Bob's who have things in balance; who worship God and obey God's
word (most of the time). The latter is refered to in the Scriptures
as good seed or disciples of Christ. The latter shall know the truth
and the truth shall make him free because he beleives and is obedient
to it.
The catch-22 is that such "Christians" are idolators and become
narcissistic "Bible scientists" worshipping their knowledge of and
ability to decipher and dissect the Bible.
Some of them sure do, don't they. Especially those who worship the
creation more than the Creator. The worship of self and the worship
of people leads one to be a narcisisst. They become self centered
lusting after self gratification that is never satisfied completely
because one lust leads to another.
sBeing a follower of Christ is all about humility, faith, and
submission to something that is not tangible.
Being a follower of Christ is all about following Christ which is why
it is called following Christ. Humility is a "self" emotion.
Meekness is being coachable, willing to learn "His" way. Faith is of
Jesus Christ. Believing is trusting and following Jesus Christ and is
manifested through obedience.
Because it is easier, the Bible becomes the god of many while God
Almighty Himself is left out in the cold; i.e., knowing OF God and
really KNOWING God are not the same thing.
The Bible becomes the god of many people because they are carnal five
senses oriented people who feel secure in what they can see, hear,
smell, taste or touch. People can see the Bible and can hear it
taught and can feel it and that is why God made the Scriptures
available so that they coukd be known via the senses and then known
via the spirit. The Comforter brings to "rememberance" which is to
say it brings to the front of the mind what was already stored in the
mind.
God is never left out in the cold and if He was the cold wouldn't hurt
Him cause He is Spirit. God is always in the same place while people;
even the best of and most dedicated of us, appear to run around in
darkness or dimness or some light. God's God and we are we. There is
only one way to "know" (epiginosko) God experientially and that is
through obedience because inspiration and revelation via the spirit
come after obedience. Signs, miracles, and wonders follow believers;
not hypocrites.
Naturally, I know the atheists reading this will balk at my analogy
since in their estimation God is non-existent. However, I think it's
important for atheists to realize that not all theists and Christians
are of the same ilk.
I think the atheists know all to well that that there are hypocrites
in all aspects of life. Hmm. Theists (I guess that would include
frog worshippers) and Christians are not the same because they have
different gods with different rules which require different behavior.
Frog worshippers may be required to worship by catching flies with
their tongue; but that doesn't make them ilk (fun to watch but not
ilk). Christians may chose to yell and scream Scriptures which make
them look pious but water down and condemn those that convict them of
their sins. That is ilky. But Christians who behave as disciples of
Christ are not ilk?
......
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SongBookz" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
16 Jun 2006 04:11:24 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2006 13:25:45 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bible Bob wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:11:33 GMT, SongBookz
<composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 08:59:47 -0700, "pbamvv@worldonline.nl"
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:
SongBookz schreef:
On 16 Jun 2006 04:05:01 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
SongBookz wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 00:21:02 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
SongBookz wrote:
If God Were Dead
"IF' ? you bloody fool.
There are thousands of gods, all of them imaginary
I posted this only to religious groups so you have nothing to complain
about other than you were just caught evangelizing your Athiest
Religion in religious groups.
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism
is human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious
mind cannot begin to understand.
And if you believe that, I have a couple bridges to sell.
The very fact that you were posting your atheistic proselytizing in
religious groups on threads that up-till-now had not been posted but
only to religious groups betrays the religious fervor of your
evangelism for an atheism that may or not be a religion to some, but
certainly, judging on your behavior, appears to be to you.
But, since you have invaded the religious groups with your
proselytizing, it's only fair to add alt.atheism to the conversation.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
Proselytizing?
Is that an real word?
Yes, it is and it's appropriate in this case.
You are right to complain about these remarks.
Thank you.
There is no such thing as a "religious mind"
Almost all human minds are capable of understanding both theism and
atheism.
Atheism is just the lack of believe in a God.
It is true that in some cases, the believe in God is dispensed with
because of a great love for reason or honesty or freedom.
But one can be an atheist and still be unreasonable, dishonest or full
of restraints,
just as theist can be fairly honeset and reasonable, and rather free
thinking.
(I admit that theists would have to cling to one thing in order to
remain theists).
Atheism though is not a religion.
That may be true, although some promote athiesm as IF it were a
religion - not all religions have a diety.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
Atheists worship "self" and "science" (world knowledge).
Here we go. Define "worship." I'm an atheist. I have never sat in a pew
admiring myself or science, I have never sung devotional songs about
myself or science, I have never prayed to myself or science, I have
never spoke in tongues about myself or science. The most I've ever done
is sip coffee while reading an interesting article on science, brushed
my teeth in a mirror, or scratched my ***** while I watched a documentary
about String Theory. Where in any of these activities have I ever
worshipped anything?
It's interesting to me that you sneer at science while you post
messages using a tool created by scientists, the computer. You're a
hypocrite of the highest order, and YOU'RE worshipping YOURSELF, since
you think you've got it all figured out.
extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of
esteem *worship of the dollar*
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
16 Jun 2006 04:23:22 PM |
|
|
SongBookz wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 13:25:45 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bible Bob wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:11:33 GMT, SongBookz
<composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 08:59:47 -0700, "pbamvv@worldonline.nl"
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:
SongBookz schreef:
On 16 Jun 2006 04:05:01 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
SongBookz wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 00:21:02 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
SongBookz wrote:
If God Were Dead
"IF' ? you bloody fool.
There are thousands of gods, all of them imaginary
I posted this only to religious groups so you have nothing to complain
about other than you were just caught evangelizing your Athiest
Religion in religious groups.
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism
is human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious
mind cannot begin to understand.
And if you believe that, I have a couple bridges to sell.
The very fact that you were posting your atheistic proselytizing in
religious groups on threads that up-till-now had not been posted but
only to religious groups betrays the religious fervor of your
evangelism for an atheism that may or not be a religion to some, but
certainly, judging on your behavior, appears to be to you.
But, since you have invaded the religious groups with your
proselytizing, it's only fair to add alt.atheism to the conversation.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
Proselytizing?
Is that an real word?
Yes, it is and it's appropriate in this case.
You are right to complain about these remarks.
Thank you.
There is no such thing as a "religious mind"
Almost all human minds are capable of understanding both theism and
atheism.
Atheism is just the lack of believe in a God.
It is true that in some cases, the believe in God is dispensed with
because of a great love for reason or honesty or freedom.
But one can be an atheist and still be unreasonable, dishonest or full
of restraints,
just as theist can be fairly honeset and reasonable, and rather free
thinking.
(I admit that theists would have to cling to one thing in order to
remain theists).
Atheism though is not a religion.
That may be true, although some promote athiesm as IF it were a
religion - not all religions have a diety.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
Atheists worship "self" and "science" (world knowledge).
Here we go. Define "worship." I'm an atheist. I have never sat in a pew
admiring myself or science, I have never sung devotional songs about
myself or science, I have never prayed to myself or science, I have
never spoke in tongues about myself or science. The most I've ever done
is sip coffee while reading an interesting article on science, brushed
my teeth in a mirror, or scratched my ***** while I watched a documentary
about String Theory. Where in any of these activities have I ever
worshipped anything?
It's interesting to me that you sneer at science while you post
messages using a tool created by scientists, the computer. You're a
hypocrite of the highest order, and YOU'RE worshipping YOURSELF, since
you think you've got it all figured out.
extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of
esteem *worship of the dollar*
I asked Bob. And you're lying anyway. You know perfectly well Bob meant
worship in the religious sense, as in:
"The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a
sacred object."
I also think you artfully snipped the other defintions (including this
one) of "worship" to suit your needs. Bob meant that atheists idolize
themselves and science, we both know it. The more I talk to theists
like you the more I have another reason to not follow god, besides the
fact of it's non-existence; I wouldn't want to be associated with
dishonest weasels like you. Unbelievable. Look up the definitions of
some fallacies and try to avoid them in the future, will you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "SongBookz" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
16 Jun 2006 04:39:18 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2006 14:23:22 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
SongBookz wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 13:25:45 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bible Bob wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:11:33 GMT, SongBookz
<composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 08:59:47 -0700, "pbamvv@worldonline.nl"
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:
SongBookz schreef:
On 16 Jun 2006 04:05:01 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
SongBookz wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 00:21:02 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
SongBookz wrote:
If God Were Dead
"IF' ? you bloody fool.
There are thousands of gods, all of them imaginary
I posted this only to religious groups so you have nothing to complain
about other than you were just caught evangelizing your Athiest
Religion in religious groups.
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism
is human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious
mind cannot begin to understand.
And if you believe that, I have a couple bridges to sell.
The very fact that you were posting your atheistic proselytizing in
religious groups on threads that up-till-now had not been posted but
only to religious groups betrays the religious fervor of your
evangelism for an atheism that may or not be a religion to some, but
certainly, judging on your behavior, appears to be to you.
But, since you have invaded the religious groups with your
proselytizing, it's only fair to add alt.atheism to the conversation.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
Proselytizing?
Is that an real word?
Yes, it is and it's appropriate in this case.
You are right to complain about these remarks.
Thank you.
There is no such thing as a "religious mind"
Almost all human minds are capable of understanding both theism and
atheism.
Atheism is just the lack of believe in a God.
It is true that in some cases, the believe in God is dispensed with
because of a great love for reason or honesty or freedom.
But one can be an atheist and still be unreasonable, dishonest or full
of restraints,
just as theist can be fairly honeset and reasonable, and rather free
thinking.
(I admit that theists would have to cling to one thing in order to
remain theists).
Atheism though is not a religion.
That may be true, although some promote athiesm as IF it were a
religion - not all religions have a diety.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
Atheists worship "self" and "science" (world knowledge).
Here we go. Define "worship." I'm an atheist. I have never sat in a pew
admiring myself or science, I have never sung devotional songs about
myself or science, I have never prayed to myself or science, I have
never spoke in tongues about myself or science. The most I've ever done
is sip coffee while reading an interesting article on science, brushed
my teeth in a mirror, or scratched my ***** while I watched a documentary
about String Theory. Where in any of these activities have I ever
worshipped anything?
It's interesting to me that you sneer at science while you post
messages using a tool created by scientists, the computer. You're a
hypocrite of the highest order, and YOU'RE worshipping YOURSELF, since
you think you've got it all figured out.
extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of
esteem *worship of the dollar*
I asked Bob. And you're lying anyway. You know perfectly well Bob meant
worship in the religious sense, as in:
"The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a
sacred object."
I also think you artfully snipped the other defintions (including this
one) of "worship" to suit your needs. Bob meant that atheists idolize
themselves and science, we both know it. The more I talk to theists
like you the more I have another reason to not follow god, besides the
fact of it's non-existence; I wouldn't want to be associated with
dishonest weasels like you. Unbelievable. Look up the definitions of
some fallacies and try to avoid them in the future, will you?
Idolize: to love or admire to excess *the common people whom he so
idolized
Idolatry: immoderate attachment or devotion to something
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
16 Jun 2006 04:51:16 PM |
|
|
SongBookz wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 14:23:22 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
SongBookz wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 13:25:45 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bible Bob wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:11:33 GMT, SongBookz
<composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 08:59:47 -0700, "pbamvv@worldonline.nl"
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:
SongBookz schreef:
On 16 Jun 2006 04:05:01 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
SongBookz wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 00:21:02 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
SongBookz wrote:
If God Were Dead
"IF' ? you bloody fool.
There are thousands of gods, all of them imaginary
I posted this only to religious groups so you have nothing to complain
about other than you were just caught evangelizing your Athiest
Religion in religious groups.
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism
is human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious
mind cannot begin to understand.
And if you believe that, I have a couple bridges to sell.
The very fact that you were posting your atheistic proselytizing in
religious groups on threads that up-till-now had not been posted but
only to religious groups betrays the religious fervor of your
evangelism for an atheism that may or not be a religion to some, but
certainly, judging on your behavior, appears to be to you.
But, since you have invaded the religious groups with your
proselytizing, it's only fair to add alt.atheism to the conversation.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
Proselytizing?
Is that an real word?
Yes, it is and it's appropriate in this case.
You are right to complain about these remarks.
Thank you.
There is no such thing as a "religious mind"
Almost all human minds are capable of understanding both theism and
atheism.
Atheism is just the lack of believe in a God.
It is true that in some cases, the believe in God is dispensed with
because of a great love for reason or honesty or freedom.
But one can be an atheist and still be unreasonable, dishonest or full
of restraints,
just as theist can be fairly honeset and reasonable, and rather free
thinking.
(I admit that theists would have to cling to one thing in order to
remain theists).
Atheism though is not a religion.
That may be true, although some promote athiesm as IF it were a
religion - not all religions have a diety.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
Atheists worship "self" and "science" (world knowledge).
Here we go. Define "worship." I'm an atheist. I have never sat in a pew
admiring myself or science, I have never sung devotional songs about
myself or science, I have never prayed to myself or science, I have
never spoke in tongues about myself or science. The most I've ever done
is sip coffee while reading an interesting article on science, brushed
my teeth in a mirror, or scratched my ***** while I watched a documentary
about String Theory. Where in any of these activities have I ever
worshipped anything?
It's interesting to me that you sneer at science while you post
messages using a tool created by scientists, the computer. You're a
hypocrite of the highest order, and YOU'RE worshipping YOURSELF, since
you think you've got it all figured out.
extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of
esteem *worship of the dollar*
I asked Bob. And you're lying anyway. You know perfectly well Bob meant
worship in the religious sense, as in:
"The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a
sacred object."
I also think you artfully snipped the other defintions (including this
one) of "worship" to suit your needs. Bob meant that atheists idolize
themselves and science, we both know it. The more I talk to theists
like you the more I have another reason to not follow god, besides the
fact of it's non-existence; I wouldn't want to be associated with
dishonest weasels like you. Unbelievable. Look up the definitions of
some fallacies and try to avoid them in the future, will you?
Idolize: to love or admire to excess *the common people whom he so
idolized
Idolatry: immoderate attachment or devotion to something
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
You can play fun word games all you want but we both know what Bob
meant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: If God Were Dead |
16 Jun 2006 09:25:06 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2006 14:51:16 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
SongBookz wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 14:23:22 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
SongBookz wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 13:25:45 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_ | | | | | |
