| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Rob Wade" |
| Date: |
13 Jan 2005 09:32:13 PM |
| Object: |
Was God wrong? |
Was God wrong?
WorldNetDaily.com
For the first time in America's great history, same-sex marriage is
legal within our borders. It's time we ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?"
For far too many, this basic question has been missing from the debate
over the redefinition of marriage.
Advocates of preserving traditional marriage, myself included, have
argued that the fundamental building-block of every single civil
society in the world throughout history has been marriage defined as a
union between one man and one woman - all societies that have veered
from this definition eventually vanished.
Social-science data proves men, women and children are healthier,
safer, better educated, more economically sound, more emotionally
stable and happier when they live within the bonds of traditional
families that include one mother and one father.
To change the basic building block of society would result in radical
changes in every other aspect of our lives. For example, consider the
exercise of free speech and the freedom of religion in Canada, where
same-sex marriage was legalized in 2003. On April 28, 2004, Bill C-250
passed the Canadian Senate making it a criminal offense to criticize
homosexuality. The government has already started banning radio
programs containing criticisms of the lifestyle. Depending on how the
Canadian courts rule in specific cases, pastors could be thrown in jail
by simply preaching sermons against homosexuality.
Evidence from the Netherlands and elsewhere illustrates that when the
definition of marriage is altered, people begin to shrug their
shoulders at the concept of marriage altogether and see it as
unnecessary - since same-sex marriages became legal in Norway, for
example, 80 out of 100 babies in some areas of the country are now born
to single mothers.
Everything from advertising to children's textbooks will change to
depict same-sex marriages as "normal." The costs of extending health
care, insurance, social security and every other benefit to new types
of married couples will skyrocket for everyone and could break the
federal treasury.
Also, who determines where the line is now drawn? If two men can marry,
can two brothers marry each other? Or two heterosexual widows? If
gender doesn't matter, why does it have to be between "two" people? Why
not three or more? Can a group of people sharing a house decide to
marry each other so that all may enjoy the legal benefits? Where does
it end? Why should it matter?
We have correctly raised all of these issues and more in our defense of
marriage. But the basic question we must raise - the only one that
really matters - is: "Was God wrong?"
Our opposition tells us that we can't bring religion or God into the
picture, that to do so would be to force our moral beliefs on others.
Yet, the only argument that the same-sex marriage crowd makes is
couched in moral terms - "It is immoral," they say, "to deny two
people who love each other the right to marry." It's the only argument
they have, and it is entirely based on their view of right and wrong.
The advocates of same-sex marriage say they believe in God - most
seek to invoke His name in their marriages. I say it's time for
everyone to stop - stop and ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?" God's
definition of marriage is clearly defined in the account of His
creation of this basic human relationship in Genesis 2: 22-24:
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman,
and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, "This is now bone of my
bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she
was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
Was God wrong in creating woman and man for each other? Was he wrong
when he established marriage as the institution in which children are
to be born?
God's design for marriage is the only one that matters. The evidence
- much of which has been provided in this column - also proves that
God's design for marriage is the only one that works for mankind.
God loves us - all of us. He created mankind in His own image, and
designed a beautiful framework in which we can thrive and multiply and
experience true fulfillment in every sense of the word. The laws of
nature - created and defined by the Creator - are the indisputable
evidence that fundamental to mankind's societal existence is the
cornerstone of marriage between one man and one woman.
To say otherwise is to declare God wrong.
.
|
|
| User: "navi-gater" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 04:08:33 AM |
|
|
"Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1105651933.166225.120290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Social-science data proves men, women and children are healthier,
safer, better educated, more economically sound, more emotionally
stable and happier when they live within the bonds of traditional
families that include one mother and one father.
Really? Since others forms of child raising (e.g. children adopted by
homosexual guardians) haven't been tried, how do you know an alternative
system might not in fact prove better still?
After all, the mother/father model worked well for cavemen - we're
supposedly more civlised and live in a less "competitive" environment.
Perhaps a better way of raising children exists...
To change the basic building block of society would result in radical
changes in every other aspect of our lives. For example, consider the
exercise of free speech and the freedom of religion in Canada, where
same-sex marriage was legalized in 2003. On April 28, 2004, Bill C-250
passed the Canadian Senate making it a criminal offense to criticize
homosexuality. The government has already started banning radio
programs containing criticisms of the lifestyle. Depending on how the
Canadian courts rule in specific cases, pastors could be thrown in
jail
by simply preaching sermons against homosexuality.
So? Homsexuality has been preached against for a long time, and yet
there are still homosexuals....
Homosexuality isn't a threat to civilization like religion is....
Evidence from the Netherlands and elsewhere illustrates that when the
definition of marriage is altered, people begin to shrug their
shoulders at the concept of marriage altogether and see it as
unnecessary - since same-sex marriages became legal in Norway, for
example, 80 out of 100 babies in some areas of the country are now
born
to single mothers.
So?
Everything from advertising to children's textbooks will change to
depict same-sex marriages as "normal." The costs of extending health
care, insurance, social security and every other benefit to new types
of married couples will skyrocket for everyone and could break the
federal treasury.
Then those benefits should be removed from heterosexual couples and
either offered to everyone, or offered to no one. Then marriage would be
a non-issue.
I'm not homosexual, but I have been forced into a marriage which I don't
want (since I have no interest in religion) in order to qualify for
certain federal programs.
Also, who determines where the line is now drawn? If two men can
marry,
can two brothers marry each other? Or two heterosexual widows? If
gender doesn't matter, why does it have to be between "two" people?
Why
not three or more? Can a group of people sharing a house decide to
marry each other so that all may enjoy the legal benefits? Where does
it end? Why should it matter?
Precisely the point "why should it matter". If married couples received
no benefits over single people (tax-breaks and legal status for example)
then marriage would be a non-issue.
We have correctly raised all of these issues and more in our defense
of
marriage. But the basic question we must raise - the only one that
really matters - is: "Was God wrong?"
The god in the bible is wrong on many things - why would this one
matter?
Our opposition tells us that we can't bring religion or God into the
picture, that to do so would be to force our moral beliefs on others.
I think it is your *irrational* beliefs that are the problem. It's one
thing to discuss the issue based on practical necessity, quality of
life, social order and personal freedoms.
When your only input is "the bible says ..." then no one is interested
(well no one worth listening to anyway).
Yet, the only argument that the same-sex marriage crowd makes is
couched in moral terms - "It is immoral," they say, "to deny two
people who love each other the right to marry." It's the only argument
they have, and it is entirely based on their view of right and wrong.
Surprise! And your argument is based on your bible's definition of right
and wrong.
The same bible with rules which in some cases are now ignored (because
it's not relevant).
The advocates of same-sex marriage say they believe in God - most
seek to invoke His name in their marriages. I say it's time for
everyone to stop - stop and ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?" God's
definition of marriage is clearly defined in the account of His
creation of this basic human relationship in Genesis 2: 22-24:
Genesis 2 says your bible god created Adam and then offered him various
animals as a "companion". Adam for some strange reason wasn't into
beastiality though, so god had to do some extra work and make a woman.
So from this, bestiality is of course recommended by god.
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman,
and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, "This is now bone of my
bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she
was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
All after Adam had turned his nose up at sheep, pigs, goats and all the
other "animals" god sent his way. Perhaps that explains the duck-billed
platypus (sp?) - god was trying to float Adam's boat...
Was God wrong in creating woman and man for each other? Was he wrong
when he established marriage as the institution in which children are
to be born?
Isn't that strange - child birth was happening before the bible was
written. How can that be?
Perhaps reproduction is in fact entirely unrelated to marriage. That
would explain how it's possible to have children outside of marriage
hmmm?
God's design for marriage is the only one that matters. The evidence
- much of which has been provided in this column - also proves that
God's design for marriage is the only one that works for mankind.
God loves us - all of us. He created mankind in His own image, and
designed a beautiful framework in which we can thrive and multiply and
experience true fulfillment in every sense of the word. The laws of
nature - created and defined by the Creator - are the indisputable
evidence that fundamental to mankind's societal existence is the
cornerstone of marriage between one man and one woman.
To say otherwise is to declare God wrong.
I know only declare your god wrong (not just on this but on most things)
- I declare him a figment of your imagination.
Prove your particular god exists, and then I'll consider his rules and
their application.
gater.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 05:04:49 AM |
|
|
"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95DDEB6E69291thegatenet@65.32.5.121...
"Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1105651933.166225.120290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Social-science data proves men, women and children are healthier,
safer, better educated, more economically sound, more emotionally
stable and happier when they live within the bonds of traditional
families that include one mother and one father.
Really? Since others forms of child raising (e.g. children adopted by
homosexual guardians) haven't been tried, how do you know an alternative
system might not in fact prove better still?
What some people for their own religio-political reasons refuse to
acknowledge is that children are happier, more stable, etc.. when they are
loved, & well taken-care of. THAT's the key.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 07:22:49 PM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:RpIFd.20744$lG.20265@trnddc03...
"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95DDEB6E69291thegatenet@65.32.5.121...
"Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1105651933.166225.120290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Social-science data proves men, women and children are healthier,
safer, better educated, more economically sound, more emotionally
stable and happier when they live within the bonds of traditional
families that include one mother and one father.
Really? Since others forms of child raising (e.g. children adopted by
homosexual guardians) haven't been tried, how do you know an alternative
system might not in fact prove better still?
What some people for their own religio-political reasons refuse to
acknowledge is that children are happier, more stable, etc.. when they are
loved, & well taken-care of. THAT's the key.
Susan
My thoughts were similar when I heard Indonesia had stopped adoptions of
children
orphaned by the tsunami and will place them in Islamic boarding schools.
*NOTHING* is more important to many religious fundamentalists than following
what they
believe are the desires of their magic guy in the sky. Not even a childs
well being.
Political zealots are not much different. The Elian Gonzalez situation
attests to that.
Rob Brown
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
18 Jan 2005 01:12:10 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:04:49 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
wrote:
"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95DDEB6E69291thegatenet@65.32.5.121...
"Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1105651933.166225.120290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Social-science data proves men, women and children are healthier,
safer, better educated, more economically sound, more emotionally
stable and happier when they live within the bonds of traditional
families that include one mother and one father.
Really? Since others forms of child raising (e.g. children adopted by
homosexual guardians) haven't been tried, how do you know an alternative
system might not in fact prove better still?
What some people for their own religio-political reasons refuse to
acknowledge is that children are happier, more stable, etc.. when they are
loved, & well taken-care of. THAT's the key.
BINGO!
Susan
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Riain Y. Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 05:12:49 AM |
|
|
God is not the problem or the issue here -- It is this hypocrite and IDIOT
who does not know his arse from a hole in the ground or how to interpret
TORAH [Old Testament].
He is so stupid that he does not even know that no where is there any
prohibition against HOMOSEXUALITY in the Hebrew Biblical texts!
The only thing that is forbidden is Anal sex for Adult Jewish Men.
Also he doesn't mention that it is an abomination to commit adultery. It is
an abomination to eat pork, shellfish and anything else that is not
kosher!!!
"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95DDEB6E69291thegatenet@65.32.5.121...
| "Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com> wrote in
| news:1105651933.166225.120290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
|
| > Social-science data proves men, women and children are healthier,
| > safer, better educated, more economically sound, more emotionally
| > stable and happier when they live within the bonds of traditional
| > families that include one mother and one father.
|
| Really? Since others forms of child raising (e.g. children adopted by
| homosexual guardians) haven't been tried, how do you know an alternative
| system might not in fact prove better still?
|
| After all, the mother/father model worked well for cavemen - we're
| supposedly more civlised and live in a less "competitive" environment.
| Perhaps a better way of raising children exists...
|
| >
| > To change the basic building block of society would result in radical
| > changes in every other aspect of our lives. For example, consider the
| > exercise of free speech and the freedom of religion in Canada, where
| > same-sex marriage was legalized in 2003. On April 28, 2004, Bill C-250
| > passed the Canadian Senate making it a criminal offense to criticize
| > homosexuality. The government has already started banning radio
| > programs containing criticisms of the lifestyle. Depending on how the
| > Canadian courts rule in specific cases, pastors could be thrown in
| jail
| > by simply preaching sermons against homosexuality.
|
| So? Homsexuality has been preached against for a long time, and yet
| there are still homosexuals....
|
| Homosexuality isn't a threat to civilization like religion is....
|
| >
| > Evidence from the Netherlands and elsewhere illustrates that when the
| > definition of marriage is altered, people begin to shrug their
| > shoulders at the concept of marriage altogether and see it as
| > unnecessary - since same-sex marriages became legal in Norway, for
| > example, 80 out of 100 babies in some areas of the country are now
| born
| > to single mothers.
|
| So?
|
| > Everything from advertising to children's textbooks will change to
| > depict same-sex marriages as "normal." The costs of extending health
| > care, insurance, social security and every other benefit to new types
| > of married couples will skyrocket for everyone and could break the
| > federal treasury.
|
| Then those benefits should be removed from heterosexual couples and
| either offered to everyone, or offered to no one. Then marriage would be
| a non-issue.
|
| I'm not homosexual, but I have been forced into a marriage which I don't
| want (since I have no interest in religion) in order to qualify for
| certain federal programs.
|
| >
| > Also, who determines where the line is now drawn? If two men can
| marry,
| > can two brothers marry each other? Or two heterosexual widows? If
| > gender doesn't matter, why does it have to be between "two" people?
| Why
| > not three or more? Can a group of people sharing a house decide to
| > marry each other so that all may enjoy the legal benefits? Where does
| > it end? Why should it matter?
|
| Precisely the point "why should it matter". If married couples received
| no benefits over single people (tax-breaks and legal status for example)
| then marriage would be a non-issue.
|
| > We have correctly raised all of these issues and more in our defense
| of
| > marriage. But the basic question we must raise - the only one that
| > really matters - is: "Was God wrong?"
|
| The god in the bible is wrong on many things - why would this one
| matter?
|
| > Our opposition tells us that we can't bring religion or God into the
| > picture, that to do so would be to force our moral beliefs on others.
|
| I think it is your *irrational* beliefs that are the problem. It's one
| thing to discuss the issue based on practical necessity, quality of
| life, social order and personal freedoms.
|
| When your only input is "the bible says ..." then no one is interested
| (well no one worth listening to anyway).
|
| > Yet, the only argument that the same-sex marriage crowd makes is
| > couched in moral terms - "It is immoral," they say, "to deny two
| > people who love each other the right to marry." It's the only argument
| > they have, and it is entirely based on their view of right and wrong.
|
| Surprise! And your argument is based on your bible's definition of right
| and wrong.
|
| The same bible with rules which in some cases are now ignored (because
| it's not relevant).
|
|
| > The advocates of same-sex marriage say they believe in God - most
| > seek to invoke His name in their marriages. I say it's time for
| > everyone to stop - stop and ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?" God's
| > definition of marriage is clearly defined in the account of His
| > creation of this basic human relationship in Genesis 2: 22-24:
|
| Genesis 2 says your bible god created Adam and then offered him various
| animals as a "companion". Adam for some strange reason wasn't into
| beastiality though, so god had to do some extra work and make a woman.
|
| So from this, bestiality is of course recommended by god.
|
| >
| >
| > And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman,
| > and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, "This is now bone of my
| > bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she
| > was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
| > mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
|
| All after Adam had turned his nose up at sheep, pigs, goats and all the
| other "animals" god sent his way. Perhaps that explains the duck-billed
| platypus (sp?) - god was trying to float Adam's boat...
|
| >
| >
| > Was God wrong in creating woman and man for each other? Was he wrong
| > when he established marriage as the institution in which children are
| > to be born?
|
| Isn't that strange - child birth was happening before the bible was
| written. How can that be?
|
| Perhaps reproduction is in fact entirely unrelated to marriage. That
| would explain how it's possible to have children outside of marriage
| hmmm?
|
| >
| > God's design for marriage is the only one that matters. The evidence
| > - much of which has been provided in this column - also proves that
| > God's design for marriage is the only one that works for mankind.
| >
| > God loves us - all of us. He created mankind in His own image, and
| > designed a beautiful framework in which we can thrive and multiply and
| > experience true fulfillment in every sense of the word. The laws of
| > nature - created and defined by the Creator - are the indisputable
| > evidence that fundamental to mankind's societal existence is the
| > cornerstone of marriage between one man and one woman.
| > To say otherwise is to declare God wrong.
|
| I know only declare your god wrong (not just on this but on most things)
| - I declare him a figment of your imagination.
|
| Prove your particular god exists, and then I'll consider his rules and
| their application.
|
| gater.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 04:26:51 AM |
|
|
"Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1105651933.166225.120290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Was God wrong?
WorldNetDaily.com
For the first time in America's great history, same-sex marriage is
legal within our borders. It's time we ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?"
For far too many, this basic question has been missing from the debate
over the redefinition of marriage.
Advocates of preserving traditional marriage, myself included, have
argued that the fundamental building-block of every single civil
society in the world throughout history has been marriage defined as a
union between one man and one woman - all societies that have veered
from this definition eventually vanished.
No, they have not. They've changed, melded with other cultures, evolved
(not the same as Darwinian evolution) to fit new conditions and new
technologies, and very occationally, vanished.
Examples? Egyptian culture did not vanish, it contributed to thecultures
that followed. Phonecian? Oun system of writing developed from
Phonecian. That's not a "vanished" culture, it's part of our culture.
Social-science data proves men, women and children are healthier,
safer, better educated, more economically sound, more emotionally
stable and happier when they live within the bonds of traditional
families that include one mother and one father.
Social science data proves no such thing, and I challenge you to support
this assertion. Social scince proves that children are healthier and
happier when they are raised in a stable environment with the same caring
adults. Heterosexual marraiges ending in repeated divorces are the worst
environment to raise a child in.
To change the basic building block of society would result in radical
changes in every other aspect of our lives. For example, consider the
exercise of free speech and the freedom of religion in Canada, where
same-sex marriage was legalized in 2003. On April 28, 2004, Bill C-250
passed the Canadian Senate making it a criminal offense to criticize
homosexuality. The government has already started banning radio
programs containing criticisms of the lifestyle. Depending on how the
Canadian courts rule in specific cases, pastors could be thrown in jail
by simply preaching sermons against homosexuality.
But Canada has no first ammendment right to free speech.
Evidence from the Netherlands and elsewhere illustrates that when the
definition of marriage is altered, people begin to shrug their
shoulders at the concept of marriage altogether and see it as
unnecessary - since same-sex marriages became legal in Norway, for
example, 80 out of 100 babies in some areas of the country are now born
to single mothers.
This is a lie. Most babies in Norway were born outside marraige long
before same sex marriage was legal.
Everything from advertising to children's textbooks will change to
depict same-sex marriages as "normal." The costs of extending health
care, insurance, social security and every other benefit to new types
of married couples will skyrocket for everyone and could break the
federal treasury.
The costs of freeing the slaves was immense, but it was the right thing
to do. Social Security costs a huge amount, but seeing that the old and
the disabled don't starve is the right thing to do.
Also, who determines where the line is now drawn? If two men can marry,
can two brothers marry each other? Or two heterosexual widows? If
gender doesn't matter, why does it have to be between "two" people? Why
not three or more? Can a group of people sharing a house decide to
marry each other so that all may enjoy the legal benefits? Where does
it end? Why should it matter?
Next, blacks and whites will want to marry! Oh, that's ok now, and
civilization didn't crash.
Consenting adults make their own choices. I don't choose for them, why
should you?
We have correctly raised all of these issues and more in our defense of
marriage. But the basic question we must raise - the only one that
really matters - is: "Was God wrong?"
No the question remains: "Was God?" The answer is "No."
Our opposition tells us that we can't bring religion or God into the
picture, that to do so would be to force our moral beliefs on others.
No, it would be forcing your religion on others.
Yet, the only argument that the same-sex marriage crowd makes is
couched in moral terms - "It is immoral," they say, "to deny two
people who love each other the right to marry." It's the only argument
they have, and it is entirely based on their view of right and wrong.
But we do not force our religious practices on you, as you are doing to
us.
The advocates of same-sex marriage say they believe in God - most
seek to invoke His name in their marriages. I say it's time for
everyone to stop - stop and ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?" God's
definition of marriage is clearly defined in the account of His
creation of this basic human relationship in Genesis 2: 22-24:
Not at all. Get God out of the civil marraig business, and your church
can choose who you will marry and who you won't. But don't tell the rest
of us who we can marry.
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman,
and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, "This is now bone of my
bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she
was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
But I'm and atheist with no respect for your beliefs, and you force me to
live by your religion's tennents. Not in the U. S.
Was God wrong in creating woman and man for each other? Was he wrong
when he established marriage as the institution in which children are
to be born?
But I'm and atheist with no respect for your beliefs, and you force me to
live by your religion's tennents. Not in the U. S.
God's design for marriage is the only one that matters. The evidence
- much of which has been provided in this column - also proves that
God's design for marriage is the only one that works for mankind.
But I'm and atheist with no respect for your beliefs, and you force me to
live by your religion's tennents. Not in the U. S.
God loves us - all of us. He created mankind in His own image, and
designed a beautiful framework in which we can thrive and multiply and
experience true fulfillment in every sense of the word. The laws of
nature - created and defined by the Creator - are the indisputable
evidence that fundamental to mankind's societal existence is the
cornerstone of marriage between one man and one woman.
To say otherwise is to declare God wrong.
OK, God is wrong. Or he would be, if he were.
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 02:53:13 AM |
|
|
"Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1105651933.166225.120290
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Was God wrong?
Gods don't exist, so I guess it depends on whose putting the words in his
mouth?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gerard van Wilgen" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 12:39:39 AM |
|
|
Evidence from the Netherlands and elsewhere illustrates that when the
definition of marriage is altered, people begin to shrug their
shoulders at the concept of marriage altogether and see it as
unnecessary - since same-sex marriages became legal in Norway, for
example, 80 out of 100 babies in some areas of the country are now born
to single mothers.
Apparently you do not know that the divorce rate in the United States is
higher than in the Netherlands and Norway. In fact, the USA have the
highest divorce rate of the major countries (the record holder are the
Maledive Islands, a very Islamic country where homosexuallity and
pre-marital sex are absolutely taboo).
Here is an enlightning article for you that I found when looking for
divorce rate statistics of different countries:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1378227,00.html
Divorce rate in conservative, Christian Texas almost twice as high as in
liberal, secular Massachusetts!
There is a lot of other interesting information in this article, like
the number of teenage pregnancies in Texas being more than twice as high
as in Massachussets, the annual number of abortions in the entire USA
being three times as high as in the Netherlands, etc.
I think this sentence from the article is really a gem:
"Many of America’s biggest “sinners” are those most intent on upholding
virtue. It may be partly because they know sin close up that they want
to prevent its occurrence among others"
Gerard van Wilgen
www.majstro.com
Multilingual translation dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "PlainOldEd" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 02:39:19 AM |
|
|
"Gerard van Wilgen" <gvanwilgen@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:cs75bi$kcb$1@reader08.wxs.nl...
There is a lot of other interesting information in this article, like the
number of teenage pregnancies in Texas being more than twice as high as in
Massachussets, the annual number of abortions in the entire USA being
three times as high as in the Netherlands, etc.
Its all them damn Mexicans in Texas, they're too fertile.
Multilingual translation dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Riain Y. Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 05:06:48 AM |
|
|
Bull Shite! It is all of you ignorant red-neck white American so-called
Christian hypocrites!
"PlainOldEd" <quasi@modo.com> wrote in message
news:Te-dncfQY-NBrXrcRVn-3g@comcast.com...
|
| "Gerard van Wilgen" <gvanwilgen@planet.nl> wrote in message
| news:cs75bi$kcb$1@reader08.wxs.nl...
| >
| > There is a lot of other interesting information in this article, like
the
| > number of teenage pregnancies in Texas being more than twice as high as
in
| > Massachussets, the annual number of abortions in the entire USA being
| > three times as high as in the Netherlands, etc.
|
| Its all them damn Mexicans in Texas, they're too fertile.
|
| > Multilingual translation dictionary
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
13 Jan 2005 09:41:58 PM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1105651933.166225.120290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Rob Wade lept out
of the bushes shouting:
It's time we ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?"
If he existed, he would be.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
| User: "D-word" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
13 Jan 2005 10:16:37 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In our last episode
<1105651933.166225.120290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Rob Wade
lept out
of the bushes shouting:
It's time we ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?"
If he existed, he would be.
I don't know that he was wrong. One man's wrong is another man's
desperate, irrational belief system. I prefer to think of him as an
outstanding business model myself. Bit of spammer though.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
13 Jan 2005 10:13:33 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In our last episode
<1105651933.166225.120290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Rob Wade lept out
of the bushes shouting:
It's time we ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?"
If he existed, he would be.
Not necessarily...because if he existed, things would be quite
different than they are now.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
13 Jan 2005 10:37:21 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jan 2005 13:32:13 -0800, "Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com>
said in alt.atheism:
For the first time in America's great history, same-sex marriage is
legal within our borders. It's time we ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?"
First let's ask ourselves, "Is there any actual evidence that any god
exists?" Until we get such evidence, asking *about* that god is
meaningless mental masturbation.
Social-science data proves men, women and children are healthier,
safer, better educated, more economically sound, more emotionally
stable and happier when they live within the bonds of traditional
families that include one mother and one father.
No such evidence exists.
programs containing criticisms of the lifestyle. Depending on how the
Canadian courts rule in specific cases, pastors could be thrown in jail
by simply preaching sermons against homosexuality.
It would serve them right. People SHOULD be thrown in jail for
violating the law.
Evidence from the Netherlands and elsewhere illustrates that when the
definition of marriage is altered, people begin to shrug their
shoulders at the concept of marriage altogether and see it as
unnecessary - since same-sex marriages became legal in Norway, for
example, 80 out of 100 babies in some areas of the country are now born
to single mothers.
Except for the "since", which is false, so what? No one is stopping
you from getting married, and whether others do or not is none of your
business.
Everything from advertising to children's textbooks will change to
depict same-sex marriages as "normal."
Stop conflating "normal" and "usual".
The costs of extending health
care, insurance, social security and every other benefit to new types
of married couples will skyrocket for everyone and could break the
federal treasury.
And that wouldn't happen if every one of them had a traditional
marriage?
Also, who determines where the line is now drawn? If two men can marry,
can two brothers marry each other? Or two heterosexual widows? If
gender doesn't matter, why does it have to be between "two" people? Why
not three or more? Can a group of people sharing a house decide to
marry each other so that all may enjoy the legal benefits? Where does
it end? Why should it matter?
Same questions were raised about miscegenation. They were nonsense
then and they're nonsense now.
We have correctly raised all of these issues and more in our defense of
marriage. But the basic question we must raise - the only one that
really matters - is: "Was God wrong?"
Nope - question begging and assuming one's conclusion are NOT things
that matter.
To say otherwise is to declare God wrong.
First prove that your god exists - then we can discuss whether it's
right, wrong or indifferent.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
13 Jan 2005 11:06:57 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:37:21 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
First let's ask ourselves, "Is there any actual evidence that any god
exists?"
Of course - evidence galore.
Until we get such evidence, asking *about* that god is
meaningless mental masturbation.
Atheists are good at that.
Social-science data proves men, women and children are healthier,
safer, better educated, more economically sound, more emotionally
stable and happier when they live within the bonds of traditional
families that include one mother and one father.
No such evidence exists.
Now why would anyone believe you?
duke
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 01:07:23 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fmvdu017hp6rlo0mhb1059vdhq385siuos@4ax.com...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:37:21 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
First let's ask ourselves, "Is there any actual evidence that any god
exists?"
Of course - evidence galore.
Duke, you constantly make this claim in your numerous posts.
When are you going to post all this "evidence"?
Until we get such evidence, asking *about* that god is
meaningless mental masturbation.
Atheists are good at that.
Social-science data proves men, women and children are healthier,
safer, better educated, more economically sound, more emotionally
stable and happier when they live within the bonds of traditional
families that include one mother and one father.
No such evidence exists.
Now why would anyone believe you?
duke
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 09:55:06 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:07:23 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Of course - evidence galore.
Duke, you constantly make this claim in your numerous posts.
When are you going to post all this "evidence"?
Already have many times. Come again.
duke
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
15 Jan 2005 11:08:14 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:55:06 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:07:23 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Of course - evidence galore.
Duke, you constantly make this claim in your numerous posts.
When are you going to post all this "evidence"?
Already have many times. Come again.
Come on Duke you know that supposed evidence of yours
is just rambling nonesense that impresses nobody.
Every time it is posted it gets shredded. Please do not insult
our intelligence by posting it again.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
15 Jan 2005 02:21:16 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:08:14 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
When are you going to post all this "evidence"?
Already have many times. Come again.
Come on Duke you know that supposed evidence of yours
is just rambling nonesense that impresses nobody.
Evidence is evidence. You ramble, I believe.
Every time it is posted it gets shredded. Please do not insult
our intelligence by posting it again.
No, it's never been shredded, and especially not by you.
duke
In God We Trust
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
13 Jan 2005 11:31:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:06:57 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:37:21 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
First let's ask ourselves, "Is there any actual evidence that any god
exists?"
Of course - evidence galore.
Oooh, goody! I bet you'll be able to *show some, then.
I can't wait to see it.
---
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be
adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 01:24:32 AM |
|
|
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:g61eu0hrvkpi5bb48pl5cfvrrj68kt8jum@4ax.com...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:06:57 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:37:21 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
First let's ask ourselves, "Is there any actual evidence that any god
exists?"
Of course - evidence galore.
Oooh, goody! I bet you'll be able to *show some, then.
I can't wait to see it.
So would I - and I'm a theist!!
Susan
---
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be
adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 01:23:09 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:31:55 -0500, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> said
in alt.atheism:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:06:57 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:37:21 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
First let's ask ourselves, "Is there any actual evidence that any god
exists?"
Of course - evidence galore.
Oooh, goody! I bet you'll be able to *show some, then.
I can't wait to see it.
<Christian moron>
I already did. Look for it.
</Puke>
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 01:55:27 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:23:09 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:31:55 -0500, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> said
in alt.atheism:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:06:57 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:37:21 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
First let's ask ourselves, "Is there any actual evidence that any god
exists?"
Of course - evidence galore.
Oooh, goody! I bet you'll be able to *show some, then.
I can't wait to see it.
<Christian moron>
I already did. Look for it.
</Puke>
Uh huh. No evidence, huh?
Quelle surprise.
Or not, as the case may be. It's not like anybody *else has ever
produced actual evidence.
---
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be
adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 03:42:54 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:55:27 -0500, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> said
in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:23:09 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:31:55 -0500, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> said
in alt.atheism:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:06:57 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:37:21 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
First let's ask ourselves, "Is there any actual evidence that any god
exists?"
Of course - evidence galore.
Oooh, goody! I bet you'll be able to *show some, then.
I can't wait to see it.
<Christian moron>
I already did. Look for it.
</Puke>
Uh huh. No evidence, huh?
Quelle surprise.
Or not, as the case may be. It's not like anybody *else has ever
produced actual evidence.
But not all theists are dishonest enough to claim to have posted the
evidence they know they don't have.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 04:45:42 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0tfeu0pd2iemjhv26g1mq391814f1qqcrk@4ax.com...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:55:27 -0500, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Or not, as the case may be. It's not like anybody *else has ever
produced actual evidence.
But not all theists are dishonest enough to claim to have posted the
evidence they know they don't have.
And some of us are honest enough to say up front that there isn't any.
(Like if there was, anyone would have to ASK for it....)
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 07:41:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:45:42 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0tfeu0pd2iemjhv26g1mq391814f1qqcrk@4ax.com...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:55:27 -0500, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Or not, as the case may be. It's not like anybody *else has ever
produced actual evidence.
But not all theists are dishonest enough to claim to have posted the
evidence they know they don't have.
And some of us are honest enough to say up front that there isn't any.
(Like if there was, anyone would have to ASK for it....)
Oh, yeah? I DARE you to post evidence of gravity.
Oh.
:)
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 05:16:14 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:42:54 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:55:27 -0500, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> said
in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:23:09 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:31:55 -0500, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> said
in alt.atheism:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:06:57 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:37:21 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
First let's ask ourselves, "Is there any actual evidence that any god
exists?"
Of course - evidence galore.
Oooh, goody! I bet you'll be able to *show some, then.
I can't wait to see it.
<Christian moron>
I already did. Look for it.
</Puke>
Uh huh. No evidence, huh?
Quelle surprise.
Or not, as the case may be. It's not like anybody *else has ever
produced actual evidence.
But not all theists are dishonest enough to claim to have posted the
evidence they know they don't have.
But all the ones that *do make that claim seem to magically lose it
between saying they've got it and being asked for it....
---
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be
adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 09:54:20 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:31:55 -0500, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote:
Oooh, goody! I bet you'll be able to *show some, then.
I can't wait to see it.
Been posted many times. come again.
duke
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
14 Jan 2005 09:59:37 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:54:20 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:31:55 -0500, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote:
Oooh, goody! I bet you'll be able to *show some, then.
I can't wait to see it.
Been posted many times. come again.
duke
Cite? You claim it's been posted, but I've seen many claims of 'proof'
of the existence of some god or other, and yet the proof has without
fail been lacking.
So, where's your proof? Let's see it so it can be examined.
---
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be
adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Was God wrong? |
15 Jan 2005 01:37:43 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:59:37 -0500, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> said
in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:54:20 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:31:55 -0500, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote:
Oooh, goody! I bet you'll be able to *show some, then.
I can't wait to see it.
Been posted many times. come again.
duke
Cite? You claim it's been posted, but I've seen many claims of 'proof'
of the existence of some god or other, and yet the proof has without
fail been lacking.
So, where's your proof? Let's see it so it can be examined.
Puke thinks that claiming that he posted proof is the same as actually
posting it.
Google says that he never posted any.
--
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is
a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the
crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due
to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, from article by
Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
