Religions > Atheism > Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
25 May 2004 07:36:52 PM |
| Object: |
Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
"I came to carry out the struggle, not to kill people. Even now, and you can
look at me: am I a savage person? My conscience is clear."
- Pol Pot
Just gotta love those communists eh? Seriously, what has the whole atheist
thing brought to the world, other than maniacal mass murderers or witty
smart-asses?
H.B.
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
26 May 2004 06:43:39 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:59:10 +0100 in alt.atheism, JPG (JPG
<me@privacy.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
On Wed, 26 May 2004 02:31:27 GMT, wrote:
On 25-May-2004, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
In reply to Mr Huge Belcher's apologist ramblings,
How many innocent women have been horribly killed in great suffering due to your
holy book's command "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?
And let's not forget the initial prohibition regarding the use of
analgesics during birth, based on:
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy
desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Happily, Queen Victoria is reputed to have said "We *will* have
chloroform," and being head of the Church in England, and Queen, that
was that.
What is even more tragic is that "witch" may be an early mistranslation of
"poisoner".
Mistranslation? IMO, a lot of these translations are self-serving, viz
"Thou shalt not kill, " and the modern convenience of "Thou shalt not
murder," where "murder" is not the kind of killing that's convenient.
And King James was in so far as we can tell, rather worried about
witches.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
25 May 2004 10:18:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 May 2004 02:31:27 GMT, wrote:
On 25-May-2004, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
Communists do not = atheists.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless
world - It is the opium of the people."
-Karl Marx
And in the 60s there were many leading bishops who preached Marxism as
epitomizing the principles of Christianity.
Communism does not = atheism.
Among the gifts this religion thing has brought to the world:
Crusades
An atrocious period of history, but motivated mostly by politics.
In those days religion was politics. And the Crusades were done in the
name of Christianity by Christians.
Inquisitions
In the entire 350 year history of the Spanish inquisition, about 30,000
people died, less than 100 a year. A good ol' atheist boy like Stalin killed
that many before breakfast.
The Inquisition was done in the name of Christianity and endorsed by
the Church as a body. And does it offer as it's excuse that it didn't
murder as many people as some power crazy political despot?
And Stalin's atrocities were not done in the name of atheism.
Pogroms
Most of which were politically motivated... and the worst of which were
carried out by the communists... er... like Pol Pot.
Holocausts
I assume you mean 'the' holocaust. Now, the National Socialist Party (Nazis)
was hardly a religious organization, but a decidedly atheist one.
Sexual (and other) abuse of children by the clergy.
Which occurs FAR less often than abuse in secular society.
Only because priests form a far less percentage of society. And what
an excuse!
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
26 May 2004 06:11:13 PM |
|
|
On 25-May-2004, (William) wrote:
And in the 60s there were many leading bishops who preached Marxism as
epitomizing the principles of Christianity.
It does, but only in a limited way.
In those days religion was politics. And the Crusades were done in the
name of Christianity by Christians.
and in the name of Islam, it was quite a messy affair.
The Inquisition was done in the name of Christianity and endorsed by
the Church as a body. And does it offer as it's excuse that it didn't
murder as many people as some power crazy political despot?
And Stalin's atrocities were not done in the name of atheism.
I don't get the math.
Christianity equals 'Christian' crusaders sacking Byzantium...
Atheism does not equal 'atheist' despots murdering millions of people...
Is that *new* math, or what?
H.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Tirebiter" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
26 May 2004 06:31:16 PM |
|
|
In article <jrudnaniDoOZuSjdRVn2hA@giganews.com>,
wrote:
On 25-May-2004, (William) wrote:
And in the 60s there were many leading bishops who preached Marxism as
epitomizing the principles of Christianity.
It does, but only in a limited way.
In those days religion was politics. And the Crusades were done in the
name of Christianity by Christians.
and in the name of Islam, it was quite a messy affair.
The Inquisition was done in the name of Christianity and endorsed by
the Church as a body. And does it offer as it's excuse that it didn't
murder as many people as some power crazy political despot?
And Stalin's atrocities were not done in the name of atheism.
I don't get the math.
Christianity equals 'Christian' crusaders sacking Byzantium...
Atheism does not equal 'atheist' despots murdering millions of people...
Is that *new* math, or what?
I'll give you a hint: the crusaders were on a crusade. They were on a
divine mission ordered by their church in the name of religion for a
religious purpose. Stalin killed anyone who was opposed to him, whom he
thought was opposed to him, or might possibly become opposed to him in the
future. He didn't single out non-atheists as his targets. In fact, a lot of
his early victims were atheists - those bolsheviks who might challenge his
power.
See the difference? One murdered in the name of religion, the other for the
purpose of power.
And you should have been more careful in trying to connect atheism to
communism. That connection is pretty weak. However the connection between
fascism and catholicism is very strong. Make a list of fascist dictators
throughout the past century. Every single one a catholic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
27 May 2004 04:00:35 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 May 2004 23:11:13 GMT, wrote:
On 25-May-2004, (William) wrote:
And in the 60s there were many leading bishops who preached Marxism as
epitomizing the principles of Christianity.
It does, but only in a limited way.
In those days religion was politics. And the Crusades were done in the
name of Christianity by Christians.
and in the name of Islam, it was quite a messy affair.
The Inquisition was done in the name of Christianity and endorsed by
the Church as a body. And does it offer as it's excuse that it didn't
murder as many people as some power crazy political despot?
And Stalin's atrocities were not done in the name of atheism.
I don't get the math.
Christianity equals 'Christian' crusaders sacking Byzantium...
Atheism does not equal 'atheist' despots murdering millions of people...
Is that *new* math, or what?
No, it's what I said. The Inquisition and the Crusades were done in
the name of Christianity and endorsed by the body of the Christian
movement - the Church.
The murdering of millions of people by a power crazed, atheist
political despot was not done in the name of atheism and was not
endorsed by the 'body' of atheists (there isn't one). It was done in
the name of a particular brand of elitist communism.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
27 May 2004 03:40:02 PM |
|
|
On 27-May-2004, (William) wrote:
No, it's what I said. The Inquisition and the Crusades were done in
the name of Christianity and endorsed by the body of the Christian
movement - the Church.
The murdering of millions of people by a power crazed, atheist
political despot was not done in the name of atheism and was not
endorsed by the 'body' of atheists (there isn't one). It was done in
the name of a particular brand of elitist communism...
....which holds atheism as an ideal. The inquisitors got carried away in the
name of a particular brand of elitist Christianity. They weren't following
the 'ideals' of Christianity any more than Stalin or Mao were following the
'ideals' of atheism...
H.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
27 May 2004 04:10:25 PM |
|
|
The murdering of millions of people by a power crazed, atheist
political despot was not done in the name of atheism and was not
endorsed by the 'body' of atheists (there isn't one). It was done in
the name of a particular brand of elitist communism...
...which holds atheism as an ideal. The inquisitors got carried away in the
name of a particular brand of elitist Christianity. They weren't following
the 'ideals' of Christianity any more than Stalin or Mao were following the
'ideals' of atheism...
Whose ideals?
“Karl Marx would have subscribed to the Sermon on the Mount....Christ [was] a
great revolutionary whose teachings coincide with the aims of socialism.” -
Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, stating the ideological link between Communism and
Christianity, 1985
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Tirebiter" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
27 May 2004 06:27:45 PM |
|
|
In article <hfCdnX7aE-6OzyvdRVn2gw@giganews.com>,
wrote:
On 27-May-2004, (William) wrote:
No, it's what I said. The Inquisition and the Crusades were done in
the name of Christianity and endorsed by the body of the Christian
movement - the Church.
The murdering of millions of people by a power crazed, atheist
political despot was not done in the name of atheism and was not
endorsed by the 'body' of atheists (there isn't one). It was done in
the name of a particular brand of elitist communism...
...which holds atheism as an ideal. The inquisitors got carried away in the
name of a particular brand of elitist Christianity. They weren't following
the 'ideals' of Christianity any more than Stalin or Mao were following the
'ideals' of atheism...
I got news for you, there are no ideals of atheism. Stalin and Mao weren't
following the ideals of ordinary humanity. Maybe they weren't following the
ideals of communism, which was their religion. After all, it has inspired
scripture, infallible leaders and apostolic succession. I don't know
whether the ideals of communism forbid mass murder. It's a rotten religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
28 May 2004 09:17:27 AM |
|
|
"George Tirebiter" <Tirebiter7@nospam.netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Tirebiter7-F4E970.18274527052004@individual.net...
In article <hfCdnX7aE-6OzyvdRVn2gw@giganews.com>,
wrote:
On 27-May-2004, (William) wrote:
No, it's what I said. The Inquisition and the Crusades were done in
the name of Christianity and endorsed by the body of the Christian
movement - the Church.
The murdering of millions of people by a power crazed, atheist
political despot was not done in the name of atheism and was not
endorsed by the 'body' of atheists (there isn't one). It was done in
the name of a particular brand of elitist communism...
...which holds atheism as an ideal. The inquisitors got carried away in
the
name of a particular brand of elitist Christianity. They weren't
following
the 'ideals' of Christianity any more than Stalin or Mao were following
the
'ideals' of atheism...
I got news for you, there are no ideals of atheism. Stalin and Mao weren't
following the ideals of ordinary humanity. Maybe they weren't following
the
ideals of communism, which was their religion. After all, it has inspired
scripture, infallible leaders and apostolic succession. I don't know
whether the ideals of communism forbid mass murder. It's a rotten
religion.
"Ordinary humanity"? Now what the hell is that?
did see my name responding to your post make your skin crawl, George?
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
28 May 2004 11:16:50 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 May 2004 14:17:27 GMT, "Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote:
"George Tirebiter" <Tirebiter7@nospam.netscape.net> wrote in message.
hughbetcha@yessiree.ca wrote:
telige@mail.clara.fl.com (William) wrote:
No, it's what I said. The Inquisition and the Crusades were done in
the name of Christianity and endorsed by the body of the Christian
movement - the Church.
The murdering of millions of people by a power crazed, atheist
political despot was not done in the name of atheism and was not
endorsed by the 'body' of atheists (there isn't one). It was done in
the name of a particular brand of elitist communism...
...which holds atheism as an ideal. The inquisitors got carried
away in the name of a particular brand of elitist Christianity.
They weren't following the 'ideals' of Christianity any more than
Stalin or Mao were following the 'ideals' of atheism...
I got news for you, there are no ideals of atheism. Stalin and Mao
weren't following the ideals of ordinary humanity. Maybe they weren't
following the ideals of communism, which was their religion. After all,
it has inspired scripture, infallible leaders and apostolic succession.
I don't know whether the ideals of communism forbid mass murder.
It's a rotten religion.
"Ordinary humanity"? Now what the hell is that?
It's something ordinary decent humans know without having to be told.
It is the ordinary human characteristic of empathy and sensitivity to
others which is the basis of a working society. Religious folk keep
telling us they know nothing of such ordinary humanity and will only
behave morally to other humans if they believe there is a deity up
there watching them. Quite often, when told about ordinary humanity,
they look blank and respond with "what the hell is that?"
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
29 May 2004 01:59:51 PM |
|
|
On 28-May-2004, (William) wrote:
It's something ordinary decent humans know without having to be told.
It is the ordinary human characteristic of empathy and sensitivity to
others which is the basis of a working society.
Yeah, Natural Law. For God so loved the world that He made possible for even
atheists to now what's right. Don't you feel special?
H.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
29 May 2004 03:59:14 PM |
|
|
<hughbetcha@yessiree.ca> wrote in message
news:t4SdncbVWcg_QCXdRVn2sQ@giganews.com...
On 28-May-2004, (William) wrote:
It's something ordinary decent humans know without having to be told.
It is the ordinary human characteristic of empathy and sensitivity to
others which is the basis of a working society.
Yeah, Natural Law. For God so loved the world that He made possible for
even
atheists to now what's right. Don't you feel special?
My empathy and sensitivity to others, which you are calling natural law,
tells me that I shouldn't kill homosexuals. This contradicts the Bible when
it says: "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB) Why would a perfect god make such an obvious mistake?
Is your God a few beers short of a six pack?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
01 Jun 2004 01:05:27 PM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:f9udnaeVJowqZCXdRVn-jg@adelphia.com...
<hughbetcha@yessiree.ca> wrote in message
news:t4SdncbVWcg_QCXdRVn2sQ@giganews.com...
On 28-May-2004, (William) wrote:
It's something ordinary decent humans know without having to be told.
It is the ordinary human characteristic of empathy and sensitivity to
others which is the basis of a working society.
Yeah, Natural Law. For God so loved the world that He made possible for
even
atheists to now what's right. Don't you feel special?
My empathy and sensitivity to others, which you are calling natural law,
tells me that I shouldn't kill homosexuals. This contradicts the Bible
when
it says: "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall
be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB) Why would a perfect god make such an obvious
mistake?
Is your God a few beers short of a six pack?
I'll say this for you Baba, you're good for a laugh.
Scott
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
29 May 2004 04:43:13 PM |
|
|
On 29-May-2004, "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
My empathy and sensitivity to others, which you are calling natural law,
tells me that I shouldn't kill homosexuals. This contradicts the Bible
when
it says: "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall
be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB) Why would a perfect god make such an obvious
mistake?
Is your God a few beers short of a six pack?
The Bible in some places seems to contradict the natural law. A good reason
to not interpret it literally.
h.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
29 May 2004 05:31:36 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 May 2004 21:43:13 GMT, wrote:
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
My empathy and sensitivity to others, which you are calling natural law,
tells me that I shouldn't kill homosexuals. This contradicts the Bible
when it says: "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of
them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited
their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) Why would a perfect god make
such an obvious mistake?
Is your God a few beers short of a six pack?
The Bible in some places seems to contradict the natural law. A good reason
to not interpret it literally.
Ah, so that's it. We have tried many times to get Christians to tell
us what criteria they use for accepting some parts of the bible as
literally true and rejecting others. The answer is clear. The bits
that contradict natural law are rejected and the bits that don't are
accepted. That explains why about the only bits that are taken as
unchallengeable literal Truth are the bits that intrinsically cannot
be tested against natural law (ie, all the supernatural doctrines and
dogmas).
The problem is that if you can't trust it in the areas you can check
then why should you trust it in the areas you can't check?
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
29 May 2004 06:42:26 PM |
|
|
On 29-May-2004, (William) wrote:
Ah, so that's it. We have tried many times to get Christians to tell
us what criteria they use for accepting some parts of the bible as
literally true and rejecting others. The answer is clear. The bits
that contradict natural law are rejected and the bits that don't are
accepted. That explains why about the only bits that are taken as
unchallengeable literal Truth are the bits that intrinsically cannot
be tested against natural law (ie, all the supernatural doctrines and
dogmas).
The problem is that if you can't trust it in the areas you can check
then why should you trust it in the areas you can't check?
Now, I am no authority on this, but I've gone and opened my big fat yapper,
so I'll just have to do my best...
In interpreting the Scriptures, the Church fathers and the Magesterium (the
wise fellows we trust to do that) have to consider a few things as absolute
truth.
-God does not lie, or break promises
-God does not change His mind
The Bible as they've compiled it (since AD 325) is a compendium of
allegorical poetry, prophecy, narrative, letters, history, ranting, raving
etc. All of it inspired by God. Not dictated by God... but *inspired.*
(Despite what the fundalmentalists will tell you, it's the cornerstone of
the faith, not the entire faith itself.) Anyhow, the wise fellows have to
figure out just what the heck God meant when He inspired the various writers
to write what they did. Not an easy task, but they have references...
-The Sacred Tradition, all that Christians did and believed that was NOT
written down.
-The natural law (of course)
-The Holy Spirit. We have faith that the 'Helper' guides the Church fathers
in their decisions.
-Science. History, psychology, anthropology, theology... it's all important.
So, with a lot of research, prayer, meditation, deep thinking and such, we
have what we're sure is the truth as it was meant to be heard. Like a
nation's constitution, it's self amending, so it can be updated as new
things are revealed to us.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
H.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
29 May 2004 08:01:27 PM |
|
|
<hughbetcha@yessiree.ca> wrote in message
news:Y_KdnWZTFuJAgiTd4p2dnA@giganews.com...
On 29-May-2004, (William) wrote:
Ah, so that's it. We have tried many times to get Christians to tell
us what criteria they use for accepting some parts of the bible as
literally true and rejecting others. The answer is clear. The bits
that contradict natural law are rejected and the bits that don't are
accepted. That explains why about the only bits that are taken as
unchallengeable literal Truth are the bits that intrinsically cannot
be tested against natural law (ie, all the supernatural doctrines and
dogmas).
The problem is that if you can't trust it in the areas you can check
then why should you trust it in the areas you can't check?
Now, I am no authority on this, but I've gone and opened my big fat
yapper,
so I'll just have to do my best...
In interpreting the Scriptures, the Church fathers and the Magesterium
(the
wise fellows we trust to do that) have to consider a few things as
absolute
truth.
-God does not lie, or break promises
-God does not change His mind
Jesus lied plenty of times. He claimed that the second coming was going to
occur during the lifetimes of some of the apostils
(http://www.evilbible.com/end_times.htm), and he also claimed that all
prayers from the faithful will come true
(http://www.evilbible.com/Jesus_Lied.htm). Neither of these things are
true. It is absurd to claim that Jesus does not lie.
The Bible as they've compiled it (since AD 325) is a compendium of
allegorical poetry, prophecy, narrative, letters, history, ranting, raving
etc. All of it inspired by God. Not dictated by God... but *inspired.*
(Despite what the fundalmentalists will tell you, it's the cornerstone of
the faith, not the entire faith itself.) Anyhow, the wise fellows have to
figure out just what the heck God meant when He inspired the various
writers
to write what they did. Not an easy task, but they have references...
-The Sacred Tradition, all that Christians did and believed that was NOT
written down.
-The natural law (of course)
-The Holy Spirit. We have faith that the 'Helper' guides the Church
fathers
in their decisions.
-Science. History, psychology, anthropology, theology... it's all
important.
So, with a lot of research, prayer, meditation, deep thinking and such, we
have what we're sure is the truth as it was meant to be heard. Like a
nation's constitution, it's self amending, so it can be updated as new
things are revealed to us.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
You really should read the links you post before you make a fool of
yourself. This link from the Vatican clearly says that "there will be no
further Revelation". Yet you seem to think that Catholic religion changes
due to new revelations. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PH.HTM
The Vatican also accepts the validity of the covenant with Moses at Mt.
Sinai:
"62 After the patriarchs, God formed Israel as his people by freeing
them from slavery in Egypt. He established with them the covenant of Mount
Sinai and, through Moses, gave them his law so that they would recognize him
and serve him as the one living and true God, the provident Father and just
judge, and so that they would look for the promised Saviour."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PG.HTM
If you recall the Bible quote that I posted earlier was from God as given to
Moses: "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put
to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB) It would seem that the Vatican would have to accept
this as being the word of God. If you don't accept it as the word of God,
then explicitly tell me why you don't consider it the word of God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
30 May 2004 05:39:18 PM |
|
|
On 29-May-2004, "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
Jesus lied plenty of times. He claimed that the second coming was going
to
occur during the lifetimes of some of the apostils
(http://www.evilbible.com/end_times.htm), and he also claimed that all
prayers from the faithful will come true
(http://www.evilbible.com/Jesus_Lied.htm). Neither of these things are
true. It is absurd to claim that Jesus does not lie.
Good grief, man! That's so immature. Do you really expect to see mountains
being tossed into the ocean? Do you think that you could be converted
against your will? Even the neolithic bumpkins who hung around with Jesus
knew what he meant!
Okay, look, here's Jesus in the desert, starving, sweating, sand in his
shorts, He's in a bad way.
Along comes Satan...
And when the tempter came to him, he said, "If thou be the Son of God,
command that these stones be made bread." But he answered and said, "It is
written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a
pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, "If thou be the Son of God, cast
thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning
thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou
dash thy foot against a stone." Jesus said unto him, "It is written again,
Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
Are you getting this?
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth
him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto
him, "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship
me." Then saith Jesus unto him, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written,
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
My point? Well, let's look at your points...
1- And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have
faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree,
but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,'
it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will
receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)
Faith moves mountains indeed; and if you want to interpret that literally;
God can certainly juggle mountains if He chooses to, but why would you
demand that of Him? *Who* are you to demand that? Does that premise seem
silly yet?
2- Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the
door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one
who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
(Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)
Have you knocked on Jesus' door? No? Then what's your point?
3- Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that
they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For
where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their
midst. (Matthew 18:19-20 NAS)
He said that to his apostles, giving them the authority (as I discussed
earlier) to create the Church. And indeed, where Christians gather in His
name, He is there.
4- On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say
to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now
you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that
your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)
Hmmm... you conviently end there and not include verse 25:
"These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming
when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you
plainly of the Father."
Sorry, Jesus, some folks are really baffled by that 'figurative' talk.
5- And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be
glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.
(John 14:13-14 NAB)
There you go again, leaving out verse 15:
"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."
Have you kept His commandments? No? Then don't expect any mountains to be
doing back flips anytime soon.
6- If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want
and it will be done for you. (John 15:7 NAB)
It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go
and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my
name he may give you. (John 15:16 NAB)
Both phrases He said to His apostles, who went on to perform wonderful
miracles. And if we ask something of the father that will 'bear fruit' then
we'll get it, too.
You really should read the links you post before you make a fool of
yourself. This link from the Vatican clearly says that "there will be no
further Revelation". Yet you seem to think that Catholic religion changes
due to new revelations. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PH.H
Here's the section:
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive
Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be
expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet
even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely
explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full
significance over the course of the centuries.
Revelation meaning "Glorious sign from the Heavens." No, we don't expect any
of that sort of thing, until the actual end of days. You'll also notice that
it says that we are to continue to increase our understanding...
Fool.
The Vatican also accepts the validity of the covenant with Moses at Mt.
Sinai:
f you recall the Bible quote that I posted earlier was from God as given
to
Moses: "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be
put
to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB) It would seem that the Vatican would have to accept
this as being the word of God. If you don't accept it as the word of God,
then explicitly tell me why you don't consider it the word of God.
Is the Old Covenenant with the Jews still in effect? Yes.
Has the New Covenent been made for Christians? Yes.
Do we have to kill homosexuals? No.
Do the Jews kill homosexuals? No.
Should EvilEd quit his day job? No.
H.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
30 May 2004 09:27:45 PM |
|
|
<hughbetcha@yessiree.ca> wrote in message
news:NcOdnX-62rkT_yfdRVn2sA@giganews.com...
On 29-May-2004, "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
Jesus lied plenty of times. He claimed that the second coming was going
to
occur during the lifetimes of some of the apostils
(http://www.evilbible.com/end_times.htm), and he also claimed that all
prayers from the faithful will come true
(http://www.evilbible.com/Jesus_Lied.htm). Neither of these things are
true. It is absurd to claim that Jesus does not lie.
Good grief, man! That's so immature. Do you really expect to see mountains
being tossed into the ocean?
I know that Jesus couldn't toss mountains into the ocean like he said he
could. He lied. I'm just amazed at the number of brain dead Christians who
think that every time Jesus lied it's actually a parable or figure of
speech. This goes back to your claim that Jesus (or God actually) never
lies. Obviously if you believe that, then you have to twist his words
around to mean something that they don't mean.
Do you think that you could be converted against your will?
I guess that that's asking a little too much from an *omnipotent* god.
And actually being converted into believing is not against my will. I would
be very happy to believe in God if he would show my some convincing
evidence, like moving the mountains behind my house, as Jesus claims he will
do.
Even the neolithic bumpkins who hung around with Jesus
knew what he meant!
Of course the apostils knew what Jesus meant. That's why they claimed to be
able to perform miracles in Jesus' name. They never thought that the prayer
concept was a figure of speech.
Okay, look, here's Jesus in the desert, starving, sweating, sand in his
shorts, He's in a bad way.
Along comes Satan...
And when the tempter came to him, he said, "If thou be the Son of God,
command that these stones be made bread." But he answered and said, "It is
written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a
pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, "If thou be the Son of God,
cast
thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge
concerning
thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou
dash thy foot against a stone." Jesus said unto him, "It is written again,
Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
Are you getting this?
Obviously Jesus couldn't turn stones into bread. I'm not surprised. But I
am surprised that anyone would believe such a lame excuse.
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and
sheweth
him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
It's funny how the creator of the earth didn't know that the earth was round
and that it is impossible to see all the kingdoms of the earth from a tall
mountain.
And saith unto
him, "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and
worship
me." Then saith Jesus unto him, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written,
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
My point? Well, let's look at your points...
1- And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have
faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig
tree,
but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,'
it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will
receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)
Faith moves mountains indeed; and if you want to interpret that literally;
God can certainly juggle mountains if He chooses to, but why would you
demand that of Him? *Who* are you to demand that? Does that premise seem
silly yet?
Isn't it obvious that I would ask Jesus to move mountains to prove he is an
omnipotent God instead of a mentally ill person. Since he is obviously not
omnipotent, is a liar, and thinks he's God, I will stick with my conclusion
that Jesus was mentally ill.
2- Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the
door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one
who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
(Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)
Have you knocked on Jesus' door? No? Then what's your point?
"Ask and it will be given to you..." It seems rather obvious to me that
Jesus lied again.
3- Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything
that
they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.
For
where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their
midst. (Matthew 18:19-20 NAS)
He said that to his apostles, giving them the authority (as I discussed
earlier) to create the Church. And indeed, where Christians gather in His
name, He is there.
He told his apostils that "anything that they may ask, it shall be done for
them..." It sounds pretty clear to me.
4- On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say
to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until
now
you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that
your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)
Hmmm... you conviently end there and not include verse 25:
"These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is
coming
when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell
you
plainly of the Father."
It seems rather obvious that the figurative part was earlier in this
chapter.
Sorry, Jesus, some folks are really baffled by that 'figurative' talk.
I would think that omnipotent omniscient God would have known that the
"figurative talk" of Jesus is about as coherent as a drunk crack ***** on a
bad acid trip.
5- And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be
glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.
(John 14:13-14 NAB)
There you go again, leaving out verse 15:
"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."
Have you kept His commandments? No? Then don't expect any mountains to be
doing back flips anytime soon.
I'm sure there are plenty of Christians who have kept his commandments and
have prayed for a loved one not to die of cancer. And yet their loved ones
still die. Why is that? Could it be that prayer is a load of crap?
6- If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you
want
and it will be done for you. (John 15:7 NAB)
It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go
and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in
my
name he may give you. (John 15:16 NAB)
Both phrases He said to His apostles, who went on to perform wonderful
miracles. And if we ask something of the father that will 'bear fruit'
then
we'll get it, too.
Well go ahead and ask God to move the mountains behind my house. That will
bear the fruit of me becoming a true believer and follower of Christ. Go
ahead, I'm waiting.
I see you also cut out, and didn't respond to, the part about Jesus' claim
that the second coming will occur during the lifetime of some of his
apostils. Couldn't you think of any good excuses?
You really should read the links you post before you make a fool of
yourself. This link from the Vatican clearly says that "there will be
no
further Revelation". Yet you seem to think that Catholic religion
changes
due to new revelations. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PH.H
Here's the section:
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive
Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be
expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet
even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely
explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full
significance over the course of the centuries.
Revelation meaning "Glorious sign from the Heavens." No, we don't expect
any
of that sort of thing, until the actual end of days. You'll also notice
that
it says that we are to continue to increase our understanding...
Fool.
I guess you were being "figurative" when you said"...as new things are
revealed to us."
The Vatican also accepts the validity of the covenant with Moses at Mt.
Sinai:
f you recall the Bible quote that I posted earlier was from God as given
to
Moses: "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be
put
to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB) It would seem that the Vatican would have to
accept
this as being the word of God. If you don't accept it as the word of
God,
then explicitly tell me why you don't consider it the word of God.
Is the Old Covenenant with the Jews still in effect? Yes.
Has the New Covenent been made for Christians? Yes.
Do we have to kill homosexuals? No.
Do the Jews kill homosexuals? No.
Should EvilEd quit his day job? No.
The old covenant says you should kill witches (Exodus 22:17), you can own
slaves and sell your daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21), and mandates
killing children for cursing their parents (Exodus 21:17). If your God made
these commandments (even if you think they are no longer in effect) then
please explain why they are not evil.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
31 May 2004 07:07:11 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:NcOdnX-62rkT_yfdRVn2sA@giganews.com:
On 29-May-2004, "Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
Jesus lied plenty of times. He claimed that the second coming was
going to
occur during the lifetimes of some of the apostils
(http://www.evilbible.com/end_times.htm), and he also claimed that
all prayers from the faithful will come true
(http://www.evilbible.com/Jesus_Lied.htm). Neither of these things
are true. It is absurd to claim that Jesus does not lie.
Good grief, man! That's so immature. Do you really expect to see
mountains being tossed into the ocean? Do you think that you could be
converted against your will? Even the neolithic bumpkins who hung
around with Jesus knew what he meant!
Since the provenance of what is written in the bible is unknown it's a bit
difficult to say if any of it has anything to do with what an actual person
named jesus said or did.
Okay, look, here's Jesus in the desert, starving, sweating, sand in
his shorts, He's in a bad way.
Along comes Satan...
Another of your imaginary beings from your pantheon of gods shows up. Ok I
follow so far,
And when the tempter came to him, he said, "If thou be the Son of God,
command that these stones be made bread." But he answered and said,
"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Translation "I am not really a god so I can't do what you ask".
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a
pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, "If thou be the Son of
God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels
charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up,
lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." Jesus said unto
him, "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
So he was asked to call up another batch of minor gods to help him out. I
thought Jesus was supposed to be one of the omnipotent gods in the
pantheon, why would he need to call up minor gods such as angels. His
response doesn't even make any sense. According to the story, satan WAS
tempting him which shows what was written as quoted by jesus was a lie.
Are you getting this?
Sure. It's most illuminating. Much more so than you seem to realise.
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and
sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
That is a physical impossibility and shows that the writer believed in a
flat earth.
And
saith unto him, "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall
down and worship me." Then saith Jesus unto him, "Get thee hence,
Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him
only shalt thou serve."
Seems rather lame since being a part of the supposedly omnipotent creator
it already had all of the things shown and more.
My point? Well, let's look at your points...
1- And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you
have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the
fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain,
Yes the fig tree story. One of the more despicable events recounted in the
Jesus character story.
`Be taken up and cast
into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer,
believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)
A lame explanation for why prayer doesn't work. You didn't believe proper
you see. LOL.
Faith moves mountains indeed; and if you want to interpret that
literally; God can certainly juggle mountains if He chooses to, but
why would you demand that of Him? *Who* are you to demand that? Does
that premise seem silly yet?
I and any other sentient being has as much right as any to demand whatever
they choose from a god (assuming it actually existed). If it made the whole
shebang it is fully responsible for all aspects of it and is morally fully
answerable to the judgement of all sentient beings that exist in that
creation. You yourself make judgment of your god thing, otherwise you would
not worship it. I don't care one way or the other. If an omnipotent (or
even moderately powerful) god existed and wanted us to know of its'
existence then we would know of it period!
2- Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and
the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and
the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be
opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)
Have you knocked on Jesus' door? No? Then what's your point?
Have you knocked on the door of Vishnu or Zeus. Your jesus thing is as
irrelevent to us as these gods are to you.
3- Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about
anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who
is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My
name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:19-20 NAS)
He said that to his apostles, giving them the authority (as I
discussed earlier) to create the Church. And indeed, where Christians
gather in His name, He is there.
Er sects by the thousands with contradictory teachings. Ok.
4- On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I
say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you.
Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will
receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)
Hmmm... you conviently end there and not include verse 25:
"These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is
coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but
will tell you plainly of the Father."
Another lie. All of those the story says were addressed with this statement
are long dead and such a thing has still not happenned.
Sorry, Jesus, some folks are really baffled by that 'figurative' talk.
So who gets to choose which bits are figurative. Like all christians, you
pick and choose the bits you like. We call it the salad bar approach around
here.
Klazmon.
<SNIP rest of sillyness it was getting boring>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
30 May 2004 08:10:12 AM |
|
|
--------------87DC627A194625FA9CCF65DA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
hughbetcha@yessiree.ca wrote:
On 29-May-2004, (William) wrote:
Ah, so that's it. We have tried many times to get Christians to tell
us what criteria they use for accepting some parts of the bible as
literally true and rejecting others. The answer is clear. The bits
that contradict natural law are rejected and the bits that don't are
accepted. That explains why about the only bits that are taken as
unchallengeable literal Truth are the bits that intrinsically cannot
be tested against natural law (ie, all the supernatural doctrines and
dogmas).
The problem is that if you can't trust it in the areas you can check
then why should you trust it in the areas you can't check?
Now, I am no authority on this, but I've gone and opened my big fat yapper,
so I'll just have to do my best...
In interpreting the Scriptures, the Church fathers and the Magesterium (the
wise fellows we trust to do that) have to consider a few things as absolute
truth.
-God does not lie, or break promises
-God does not change His mind
The Bible as they've compiled it (since AD 325) is a compendium of
allegorical poetry, prophecy, narrative, letters, history, ranting, raving
etc. All of it inspired by God. Not dictated by God... but *inspired.*
(Despite what the fundalmentalists will tell you, it's the cornerstone of
the faith, not the entire faith itself.) Anyhow, the wise fellows have to
figure out just what the heck God meant when He inspired the various writers
to write what they did. Not an easy task, but they have references...
-The Sacred Tradition, all that Christians did and believed that was NOT
written down.
-The natural law (of course)
-The Holy Spirit. We have faith that the 'Helper' guides the Church fathers
in their decisions.
-Science. History, psychology, anthropology, theology... it's all important.
So, with a lot of research, prayer, meditation, deep thinking and such, we
have what we're sure is the truth as it was meant to be heard. Like a
nation's constitution, it's self amending, so it can be updated as new
things are revealed to us.
It's not like you have anything better to do...
Paul
--------------87DC627A194625FA9CCF65DA
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<p>hughbetcha@yessiree.ca wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>On 29-May-2004, (William)
wrote:
<p>> Ah, so that's it. We have tried many times to get Christians to tell
<br>> us what criteria they use for accepting some parts of the bible as
<br>> literally true and rejecting others. The answer is clear. The bits
<br>> that contradict natural law are rejected and the bits that don't
are
<br>> accepted. That explains why about the only bits that are taken as
<br>> unchallengeable literal Truth are the bits that intrinsically cannot
<br>> be tested against natural law (ie, all the supernatural doctrines
and
<br>> dogmas).
<br>>
<br>> The problem is that if you can't trust it in the areas you can check
<br>> then why should you trust it in the areas you can't check?
<p>Now, I am no authority on this, but I've gone and opened my big fat
yapper,
<br>so I'll just have to do my best...
<p>In interpreting the Scriptures, the Church fathers and the Magesterium
(the
<br>wise fellows we trust to do that) have to consider a few things as
absolute
<br>truth.
<p>-God does not lie, or break promises
<br>-God does not change His mind
<p>The Bible as they've compiled it (since AD 325) is a compendium of
<br>allegorical poetry, prophecy, narrative, letters, history, ranting,
raving
<br>etc. All of it inspired by God. Not dictated by God... but *inspired.*
<br>(Despite what the fundalmentalists will tell you, it's the cornerstone
of
<br>the faith, not the entire faith itself.) Anyhow, the wise fellows have
to
<br>figure out just what the heck God meant when He inspired the various
writers
<br>to write what they did. Not an easy task, but they have references...
<p>-The Sacred Tradition, all that Christians did and believed that was
NOT
<br>written down.
<br>-The natural law (of course)
<br>-The Holy Spirit. We have faith that the 'Helper' guides the Church
fathers
<br>in their decisions.
<br>-Science. History, psychology, anthropology, theology... it's all important.
<p>So, with a lot of research, prayer, meditation, deep thinking and such,
we
<br>have what we're sure is the truth as it was meant to be heard. Like
a
<br>nation's constitution, it's self amending, so it can be updated as
new
<br>things are revealed to us.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM"></a> </blockquote>
<p> It's not like you have anything
better to do...
<br>
<br>
<p>Paul</html>
--------------87DC627A194625FA9CCF65DA--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
01 Jun 2004 01:30:21 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C447DC.95D10FE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"Paul Duca" <tomservo@comcast.net> wrote in message =
news:40B9DD28.A1424A03@comcast.net...
=20
=20
It's not like you have anything better to do...=20
Should I take you don't either.....?
Scott
------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C447DC.95D10FE0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D""><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"Paul Duca" =
<tomservo@comcast.net> wrote=20
in message <A=20
href=3D"news:40B9DD28.A1424A03@comcast.net">news:40B9DD28.A1424A03@comcas=
t.net</A>...<BR></FONT></DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV><BR> <BR> <BR>> It's not like you have anything =
better=20
to do... </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Should I take you don't either.....?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Scott </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C447DC.95D10FE0--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
30 May 2004 08:30:58 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 29-May-2004, (William) wrote:
Ah, so that's it. We have tried many times to get Christians to tell
us what criteria they use for accepting some parts of the bible as
literally true and rejecting others. The answer is clear. The bits
that contradict natural law are rejected and the bits that don't are
accepted. That explains why about the only bits that are taken as
unchallengeable literal Truth are the bits that intrinsically cannot
be tested against natural law (ie, all the supernatural doctrines and
dogmas).
The problem is that if you can't trust it in the areas you can check
then why should you trust it in the areas you can't check?
Now, I am no authority on this, but I've gone and opened my big fat yapper,
so I'll just have to do my best...
In interpreting the Scriptures, the Church fathers and the Magesterium (the
wise fellows we trust to do that) have to consider a few things as absolute
truth.
-God does not lie, or break promises
-God does not change His mind
-God does not care, either
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
30 May 2004 02:11:09 PM |
|
|
On 30-May-2004, Paul Duca <tomservo@comcast.net> wrote:
-God does not care, either
Hmmm. Normally, the response is 'there is no God, nyah nyah nyah na nyah
nyah.'
But you seem to acknowledge Him, but by saying that He doesn't care opens up
a whole new can o' worms...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
30 May 2004 02:24:04 PM |
|
|
said:
On 30-May-2004, Paul Duca <tomservo@comcast.net> wrote:
-God does not care, either
Hmmm. Normally, the response is 'there is no God, nyah nyah nyah na nyah
nyah.'
But you seem to acknowledge Him, but by saying that He doesn't care opens up
a whole new can o' worms...
Concepts do not have cares.
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
30 May 2004 05:27:51 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:42:26 GMT, wrote:
On 29-May-2004, (William) wrote:
Ah, so that's it. We have tried many times to get Christians to tell
us what criteria they use for accepting some parts of the bible as
literally true and rejecting others. The answer is clear. The bits
that contradict natural law are rejected and the bits that don't are
accepted. That explains why about the only bits that are taken as
unchallengeable literal Truth are the bits that intrinsically cannot
be tested against natural law (ie, all the supernatural doctrines and
dogmas).
The problem is that if you can't trust it in the areas you can check
then why should you trust it in the areas you can't check?
Now, I am no authority on this, but I've gone and opened my big fat yapper,
so I'll just have to do my best...
In interpreting the Scriptures, the Church fathers and the Magesterium (the
wise fellows we trust to do that) have to consider a few things as absolute
truth.
-God does not lie, or break promises
-God does not change His mind
Where do you get that from?
The Bible as they've compiled it (since AD 325) is a compendium of
allegorical poetry, prophecy, narrative, letters, history, ranting, raving
etc. All of it inspired by God. Not dictated by God... but *inspired.*
(Despite what the fundalmentalists will tell you, it's the cornerstone of
the faith, not the entire faith itself.) Anyhow, the wise fellows have to
figure out just what the heck God meant when He inspired the various writers
to write what they did. Not an easy task, but they have references...
Why is it left to 'wise fellows' to figure out what the heck he said?
Why do all the 'wise fellows' down the ages come up with different and
contradictory meaning? Did God intend his message to be understood
unambiguously by everyone? And If so, why was he unable to do so?
And, on what basis do you claim that God had anything to do with the
bible? Particularly since God is said to be omnipotent and omniscient
and would know precisely how to inspire a writer to get his message
down clearly and unambiguously - and the bible (as per your above) is
such a hodge podge of ambiguous stuff and such a garbled and
contradictory message?
-The Sacred Tradition, all that Christians did and believed that was NOT
written down.
-The natural law (of course)
-The Holy Spirit. We have faith that the 'Helper' guides the Church fathers
in their decisions.
-Science. History, psychology, anthropology, theology... it's all important.
But 'theology' is the overriding authority for the Church so why
invoke any of the others? Theology doesn't require any of the rest.
The Church states that where any natural explanation would contradict
it's theological dogmas the natural explanation has to be abandoned.
So where does the Church get it's theological doctrines from? It
clearly cherry picks the bible, and it cherry picks alleged 'revealed
Truths' in the historical Church.
So, with a lot of research, prayer, meditation, deep thinking and such, we
have what we're sure is the truth as it was meant to be heard. Like a
nation's constitution, it's self amending, so it can be updated as new
things are revealed to us.
So the Protestants, the JWs, the Mormons may all have the truth? They
certainly do a lot of research, prayer, meditation and deep thinking.
And a lot of those take the bible (God's inspired word, according to
you) as more literally true than you do.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
01 Jun 2004 01:27:29 PM |
|
|
"William" <> wrote in message
news:40b9ae4b.4861803@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:42:26 GMT, wrote:
On 29-May-2004, (William) wrote:
Ah, so that's it. We have tried many times to get Christians to tell
us what criteria they use for accepting some parts of the bible as
literally true and rejecting others. The answer is clear. The bits
that contradict natural law are rejected and the bits that don't are
accepted. That explains why about the only bits that are taken as
unchallengeable literal Truth are the bits that intrinsically cannot
be tested against natural law (ie, all the supernatural doctrines and
dogmas).
The problem is that if you can't trust it in the areas you can check
then why should you trust it in the areas you can't check?
Now, I am no authority on this, but I've gone and opened my big fat
yapper,
so I'll just have to do my best...
In interpreting the Scriptures, the Church fathers and the Magesterium
(the
wise fellows we trust to do that) have to consider a few things as
absolute
truth.
-God does not lie, or break promises
-God does not change His mind
Where do you get that from?
The Bible as they've compiled it (since AD 325) is a compendium of
allegorical poetry, prophecy, narrative, letters, history, ranting,
raving
etc. All of it inspired by God. Not dictated by God... but *inspired.*
(Despite what the fundalmentalists will tell you, it's the cornerstone of
the faith, not the entire faith itself.) Anyhow, the wise fellows have to
figure out just what the heck God meant when He inspired the various
writers
to write what they did. Not an easy task, but they have references...
Why is it left to 'wise fellows' to figure out what the heck he said?
Why do all the 'wise fellows' down the ages come up with different and
contradictory meaning? Did God intend his message to be understood
unambiguously by everyone? And If so, why was he unable to do so?
And, on what basis do you claim that God had anything to do with the
bible? Particularly since God is said to be omnipotent and omniscient
and would know precisely how to inspire a writer to get his message
down clearly and unambiguously - and the bible (as per your above) is
such a hodge podge of ambiguous stuff and such a garbled and
contradictory message?
-The Sacred Tradition, all that Christians did and believed that was NOT
written down.
-The natural law (of course)
-The Holy Spirit. We have faith that the 'Helper' guides the Church
fathers
in their decisions.
-Science. History, psychology, anthropology, theology... it's all
important.
But 'theology' is the overriding authority for the Church so why
invoke any of the others? Theology doesn't require any of the rest.
The Church states that where any natural explanation would contradict
it's theological dogmas the natural explanation has to be abandoned.
So where does the Church get it's theological doctrines from? It
clearly cherry picks the bible, and it cherry picks alleged 'revealed
Truths' in the historical Church.
So, with a lot of research, prayer, meditation, deep thinking and such,
we
have what we're sure is the truth as it was meant to be heard. Like a
nation's constitution, it's self amending, so it can be updated as new
things are revealed to us.
So the Protestants, the JWs, the Mormons may all have the truth? They
certainly do a lot of research, prayer, meditation and deep thinking.
And a lot of those take the bible (God's inspired word, according to
you) as more literally true than you do.
It took 300 years of Christianity before the books in the bible were
compiled into the it. That's comparable to the USA not having it's
constitution written for another 70+ years. There was debate as to which
books should be included into the bible. IIRC there was even debate as to
whether Christianity had anything to do with the OT and whether those books
should even be included in the Christian bible. What it ended up with is a
division between Old and *New* (get it Baba) Testament. In equal addition to
this New is the Catholic reliance on a Living Tradition. Baba's repeated
quoting OT as the Catholic source of morals is a joke to Catholics. As I've
told him, the Church rejects divine command and embraces human Reasoning to
discover Natural Laws as it's source of knowing objective morality.
I've never been able to figure out where Baba's objective morality comes
from. What is the source of your moral objectivism, Baba?
Scott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
01 Jun 2004 04:46:19 PM |
|
|
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:lU3vc.3676$7E3.1102@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
I've never been able to figure out where Baba's objective morality comes
from. What is the source of your moral objectivism, Baba?
I responded to your stupid question at least a dozen times. I explained it
in terms a person of normal intelligence could understand. You did not
understand it, so I explained it in terms a sixth grader could understand.
You still could not understand. Then I explained it in terms a retard could
understand. Yet you still do not understand.
Other people have responded to your posts in the same way. They start with
a response that a person of average intelligence could understand. But you
didn't understand. Then they explained it in simple language that a sixth
grader could understand. Yet you still did not understand. Then they
explain it in words that a second grade child could understand. And once
again you do not understand.
It's time to face the facts and realize that you are just extremely stupid
and incapable of understanding even basic concepts. Don't you think it's
time you stopped making a fool of yourself and try to get an education so
that you can understand what other people are saying?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Semi - Regular Evil Atheist Quote -- No Conscience Required |
02 Jun 2004 09:03:03 AM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:WJSdnQNbuYyiZCHdRVn-hw@adelphia.com...
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:lU3vc.3676$7E3.1102@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
I've never been able to figure out where Baba's objective morality comes
from. What is the source of your moral objectivism, Baba?
I responded to your stupid question at least a dozen times. I explained
it
in terms a person of normal intelligence could understand. You did not
understand it, so I explained it in terms a sixth grader could understand.
You still could not understand. Then I explained it in terms a retard
could
understand. Yet you still do not understand.
Other people have responded to your posts in the same way. They start
with
a response that a person of average intelligence could understand. But
you
didn't understand. Then they explained it in simple language that a sixth
grader could understand. Yet you still did not understand. Then they
explain it in words that a second grade child could understand. And once
again you do not understand.
It's time to face the facts and realize that you are just extremely stupid
and incapable of understanding even basic concepts. Don't you think it's
time you stopped making a fool of yourself and try to get an education so
that you can understand what other people are saying?
Welllllllll maybe you'd like to splain it gain, Baba, cuz I ain't the only
one who can't see how you've gotten to a belief in Moral Objectivism. You
are clearly in the ethical minority in a.a. Maybe even a minority of ONE.
Get it? I guess all those atheists in a.a. who believe morality is
Subjective and Relative must be stupid too.
Splain your Objectivism to dem in a.a., Baba.
Better yet, You keep saying the Bible is (q spooky music) Eeeeevil. But you
give no alternative mor | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
