| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"John Rohrer" |
| Date: |
23 Jan 2004 12:03:53 AM |
| Object: |
Re: No evidence of God yet... |
Douglas wrote:
I am an agnostic. Now that that's out of the way, I do not believe that
the God portrayed in Christian mythology or any other religion is real or
even close. Prayer and worship is just a waste of time because no God is
listening.
Well, there's the power of expectations, hope, self-fulfilling prophecies,
mind-body medicine...what did I leave out...
I thought God was all powerful and perfect. Well this place
(Earth) is a disaster. I am not impressed with his work if that is the
case. I tried to talk to God, but he won't answer me back. He must not
like me.
Well, the bible says He gave us free will, right? As far as your "no reply", it
may be that you're not listening in the right way or in the right frame of mind.
Hey, it's plausible anyway.
All I have to say to a theist is prove it. They will freeze
up...naturally because even they know their beliefs are totally irrational.
They will often come back with "Prove he doesn't exist". The burden of
proof lies in the theist lap. They should convince me he is real, not scare
me into believing he is real with the "threat" of Hell after death. I
believe when you die, you die. No heaven or hell. Just nothing. It will
feel the way you felt before you were born.
I don't know how you can say to such a certain degree. It seems congruent with
common sense and observation, but common sense and observation may not be
equipped to give us any thorough understanding of mortality. Many perspectives
can be taken, and they all make sense to those who take them. For instance,
who's to say that there's nothing to the idea of reincarnation? Who's to say
we're not just the eyes of the universe winking open and shut as we watch
ourselves through the ages? Is the concept of personal identity inherently
misleading? If our identities are functions of our brief, local experience of
the universe, what are the implications? Alternately, if there is a more basic,
essential identity, would that not live in each locus of experience manifested
throughout the universe? ...food for thought anyway.
I can accept that. Theist
can't. So they decided to make up a nice place for good people and a bad
place for bad people. Sounds like this was made up a long time ago to keep
people in line and give them hope that "when I die, I will go to heaven."
Without religion, people would see no reason to live here. Anarchy would
happen.
Perhaps "civilized" culture (where the food is under lock and key) breeds
heirarchy and injustice and suppresses true tribal democracy. If you've toiled
under oppression your whole life while a privileged few commit atrocities with
impunity (as the system enables), divine justice is an understandably welcome
concept. "Keeping the masses in line" sounds to me like an attempt to save a
society whose social bonds were dissolved by and insidious atmosphere of control
and personal entitlement (the dangerous combination which seems to me to be at
the heart of the agricultural revolution which spawned the need for
"salvationist" religions. You see, indigenous cultures (still being extinguished
by civilization's zealous expansion) ascribe to "animistic" religions focused on
the interdependent harmony of life, rather than a way to cope with our current
disequilibruim. If you contest that the alternative is anarchy, I submit the
opinion that heirarchical governmental systems create the suffering which
"salvationist" religions medicate.
Heaven, sounds nice...lets go there and prove it once and for all...oh,
thats right. How convienient. We can't go there alive and there is no
scientific reason to believe in its existence anyway. Heaven is not real.
Period.
Well, who's to say unequivocally that it's not? Or maybe it's all a matter of
perspective. It seems real enough as a metaphor for creating a utopian society.
But then, utopianism seems inherently divisive, as it rejects compromise in
favor of the One Right Way which seems to cause so many conflicts.
God, sounds like an interesting person...I would like to meet him
now...oh, thats right. How convienient. He doesn't talk back and science
has yet to find his radio frequency. Either God doesn't care about us or he
doesn't exist.
Begging for opinions please.
Maybe we *are God in the sense that we're indistinguishably connected to every
perticle in the known universe. Maybe we're trying to playing God all over this
planet. Or maybe, just *maybe, there *is a real God out there who entrusted us
with this fine planet... which will cease to be when Christ returns to send the
non-Christian 2/3 of the planet straight to hell or purgatory along with all of
the Christian sects who happened to be wrong (oops) any any within the *right
faith who weren't quite able to follow all of the rules. Oh yeah, I forgot to
include any sentient beings inhabiting any of the other trillion planets
throughout the universe.Gee, hell sounds like the place to be to meet new
people.
Crossing my fingers,
John
.
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
06 Feb 2004 07:54:09 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:27:35 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
He rose from the dead under his own power, rolled the stone aside, and proceeded
to walk and talk and eat and drink with 500+ of his followers for the next 40
days before ascending to the Father.
Ghosts don't sit down to a meal.
Fictional ones do.
The kind made up by followers to rescue a failed ministry.
Well, all you're doing is babbling now.
Well there's a fine, closely reasoned riposte!
Not!
And Jewish holy men didn't propose that their followers drink blood
and engage in ritual cannibalism either. Not without being stoned to
death on the spot! But fictional ones do.
Just for grins, how can you say "Jewish holy men didn't.........."
The Jews were into cannibalism were they?
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any
blood.
Leviticus 7:26 You must not eat any blood whatever, either of bird or
of animal, in any of your settlements. 27 Any one of you who eats any
blood shall be cut off from your kin.
Leviticus 17:10 If anyone of the house of Israel or of the aliens who
reside among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that
person who eats blood, and will cut that person off from the people.
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to
you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it
is the blood that makes atonement. 12 Therefore I have said to the
people of Israel: No person among you shall eat blood, nor shall any
alien who resides among you eat blood. 13 And anyone of the people of
Israel, or of the aliens who reside among them, who hunts down an
animal or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it
with earth.
14For the life of every creature—its blood is its life; therefore I
have said to the people of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any
creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it
shall be cut off.
You see, you base your statements on something you are totally incapable of
supporting.
But I just did, And I've seen examples of your idea of scholarship in
the last couple of posts. You're in no position to criticise ANYONE'S
ability to support anything after those examples.
Much less then translating it into religious beliefs which then
becomes a statement of the existance of God.
Well I agree on that point. NOBODY can do that. Certainly not you!
## My cow died so I don't need your bull anymore
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
06 Feb 2004 01:55:30 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:54:09 -0800, John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:27:35 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
He rose from the dead under his own power, rolled the stone aside, and proceeded
to walk and talk and eat and drink with 500+ of his followers for the next 40
days before ascending to the Father.
Ghosts don't sit down to a meal.
Fictional ones do.
The kind made up by followers to rescue a failed ministry.
Well, all you're doing is babbling now.
Well there's a fine, closely reasoned riposte!
Not!
Surely you dont' expect to get anywheres which wild unfounded statements like
failed ministry.
And Jewish holy men didn't propose that their followers drink blood
and engage in ritual cannibalism either. Not without being stoned to
death on the spot! But fictional ones do.
Just for grins, how can you say "Jewish holy men didn't.........."
The Jews were into cannibalism were they?
Ok, you have no answer I see.
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any
blood.
Jewish man-made rule.
Leviticus 7:26 You must not eat any blood whatever, either of bird or
of animal, in any of your settlements. 27 Any one of you who eats any
blood shall be cut off from your kin.
Jewish man-made rule
Leviticus 17:10 If anyone of the house of Israel or of the aliens who
reside among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that
person who eats blood, and will cut that person off from the people.
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to
you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it
is the blood that makes atonement. 12 Therefore I have said to the
people of Israel: No person among you shall eat blood, nor shall any
alien who resides among you eat blood. 13 And anyone of the people of
Israel, or of the aliens who reside among them, who hunts down an
animal or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it
with earth.
14For the life of every creature—its blood is its life; therefore I
have said to the people of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any
creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it
shall be cut off.
Blood was considered the "thing of life" in the Jewish community, and hence a
violaton of their covenant with God to so consume.
You see, you base your statements on something you are totally incapable of
supporting.
But I just did, And I've seen examples of your idea of scholarship in
the last couple of posts. You're in no position to criticise ANYONE'S
ability to support anything after those examples.
My statements are rock solid. You should try it for a change.
Much less then translating it into religious beliefs which then
becomes a statement of the existance of God.
Well I agree on that point. NOBODY can do that. Certainly not you!
I never claimed to. I'm discussing the Christianity given to us by God.
Something you're not familiar with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
06 Feb 2004 04:54:45 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:55:30 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
He rose from the dead under his own power, rolled the stone aside, and proceeded
to walk and talk and eat and drink with 500+ of his followers for the next 40
days before ascending to the Father.
Ghosts don't sit down to a meal.
Fictional ones do.
The kind made up by followers to rescue a failed ministry.
Well, all you're doing is babbling now.
Well there's a fine, closely reasoned riposte!
Not!
Surely you dont' expect to get anywheres which wild unfounded statements like
failed ministry.
With you? No. But I can recommend quite persuasive scholarly arguments
to anyone who can read for meaning.
And Jewish holy men didn't propose that their followers drink blood
and engage in ritual cannibalism either. Not without being stoned to
death on the spot! But fictional ones do.
Just for grins, how can you say "Jewish holy men didn't.........."
The Jews were into cannibalism were they?
Ok, you have no answer I see.
That was a question.
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any
blood.
Jewish man-made rule.
Sure was.
But the Jews believed it to be handed down from God
Leviticus 7:26 You must not eat any blood whatever, either of bird or
of animal, in any of your settlements. 27 Any one of you who eats any
blood shall be cut off from your kin.
Jewish man-made rule
Sure was.
But the Jews believed it to be handed down from God, and still do!
Leviticus 17:10 If anyone of the house of Israel or of the aliens who
reside among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that
person who eats blood, and will cut that person off from the people.
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to
you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it
is the blood that makes atonement. 12 Therefore I have said to the
people of Israel: No person among you shall eat blood, nor shall any
alien who resides among you eat blood. 13 And anyone of the people of
Israel, or of the aliens who reside among them, who hunts down an
animal or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it
with earth.
14For the life of every creature—its blood is its life; therefore I
have said to the people of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any
creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it
shall be cut off.
Blood was considered the "thing of life" in the Jewish community, and hence a
violaton of their covenant with God to so consume.
Exactly. So what would have happened to a holy man who proposed such a
thing?
On the other hand the Gentiles had no problems with such a concept.
You see, you base your statements on something you are totally incapable of
supporting.
But I just did, And I've seen examples of your idea of scholarship in
the last couple of posts. You're in no position to criticise ANYONE'S
ability to support anything after those examples.
My statements are rock solid.
Everyone's laughing at you duke. You're a fool.
Much less then translating it into religious beliefs which then
becomes a statement of the existance of God.
Well I agree on that point. NOBODY can do that. Certainly not you!
I never claimed to.
You've been doing so egregiously.
I'm discussing the Christianity given to us by God.
There! You just did it again. That was a statement on something you
are totally incapable of supporting.
Something you're not familiar with.
Nor is anyone else.
## You can't teach a pig to sing!
## It wastes your time and annoys the pig!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anti-Septic" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
06 Feb 2004 05:11:35 PM |
|
|
Isn't it curious how all the embarrassing passages
from the OT are "Jewish, man made rules", but all
the passages they hold on to, like "homosexuality
is an abomination", is the inerrent word of God?
John Ings wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:55:30 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
He rose from the dead under his own power, rolled the stone aside, and proceeded
to walk and talk and eat and drink with 500+ of his followers for the next 40
days before ascending to the Father.
Ghosts don't sit down to a meal.
Fictional ones do.
The kind made up by followers to rescue a failed ministry.
Well, all you're doing is babbling now.
Well there's a fine, closely reasoned riposte!
Not!
Surely you dont' expect to get anywheres which wild unfounded statements like
failed ministry.
With you? No. But I can recommend quite persuasive scholarly arguments
to anyone who can read for meaning.
And Jewish holy men didn't propose that their followers drink blood
and engage in ritual cannibalism either. Not without being stoned to
death on the spot! But fictional ones do.
Just for grins, how can you say "Jewish holy men didn't.........."
The Jews were into cannibalism were they?
Ok, you have no answer I see.
That was a question.
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any
blood.
Jewish man-made rule.
Sure was.
But the Jews believed it to be handed down from God
Leviticus 7:26 You must not eat any blood whatever, either of bird or
of animal, in any of your settlements. 27 Any one of you who eats any
blood shall be cut off from your kin.
Jewish man-made rule
Sure was.
But the Jews believed it to be handed down from God, and still do!
Leviticus 17:10 If anyone of the house of Israel or of the aliens who
reside among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that
person who eats blood, and will cut that person off from the people.
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to
you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it
is the blood that makes atonement. 12 Therefore I have said to the
people of Israel: No person among you shall eat blood, nor shall any
alien who resides among you eat blood. 13 And anyone of the people of
Israel, or of the aliens who reside among them, who hunts down an
animal or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it
with earth.
14For the life of every creature—its blood is its life; therefore I
have said to the people of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any
creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it
shall be cut off.
Blood was considered the "thing of life" in the Jewish community, and hence a
violaton of their covenant with God to so consume.
Exactly. So what would have happened to a holy man who proposed such a
thing?
On the other hand the Gentiles had no problems with such a concept.
You see, you base your statements on something you are totally incapable of
supporting.
But I just did, And I've seen examples of your idea of scholarship in
the last couple of posts. You're in no position to criticise ANYONE'S
ability to support anything after those examples.
My statements are rock solid.
Everyone's laughing at you duke. You're a fool.
Much less then translating it into religious beliefs which then
becomes a statement of the existance of God.
Well I agree on that point. NOBODY can do that. Certainly not you!
I never claimed to.
You've been doing so egregiously.
I'm discussing the Christianity given to us by God.
There! You just did it again. That was a statement on something you
are totally incapable of supporting.
Something you're not familiar with.
Nor is anyone else.
## You can't teach a pig to sing!
## It wastes your time and annoys the pig!
.
|
|
|
| User: "386sx" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
06 Feb 2004 06:17:58 PM |
|
|
Anti-Septic writes:
Isn't it curious how all the embarrassing passages from the OT are
"Jewish, man made rules", but all the passages they hold on to, like
"homosexuality is an abomination", is the inerrent word of God?
Actually, that's an easy one to figure out. The answer is that divine
inspiration can be whatever they want it to be, and via whatever rationale
they wish. What is truly curious is that it is always difficult to tell the
difference between divine inspiration and "pretending."
One year old child A: "Where do puppies come from?"
One year old child B: "Why, puppies come from god, of course."
Grown "adult" C: "Why, what a truly inspired little child that is."
Grown adult D: "No, the child is not inspired, he's just pretending because
he doesn't know about puppies but he would like to think
that he does - heck, he don't even have much learnin' yet,
for crying out loud."
Grown "adult" C: "Um, go read Psalm 14, fool."
Grown adult D: "But I didn't say anything about 'there is no God', and
besides, Psalm 14 also says that there is 'none that doeth
good, no, not one' and I really do find that rather
difficult to believe."
Grown "adult" C: "Why don't you go chew on some marbles or something, fool."
--
"It's pretty simple to understand what our fellow human beings require,
because they're the same things we require for ourselves."
-- James A. Bartlett
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... PICK-AND-CHOOSE |
06 Feb 2004 10:19:34 PM |
|
|
Anti-Septic wrote:
Isn't it curious how all the embarrassing passages
from the OT are "Jewish, man made rules", but all
the passages they hold on to, like "homosexuality
is an abomination", is the inerrent word of God?
===>Indeed. of course, it should be understood that
Christianity is a Gentile-based, Judaism-flavored
mix-and-match pick-and-choose religion from the beginning,
as illustrated already by the authors compiled in the
"New Testament". See for example Saul/Paul vs. James
(whose letter Martin Luther wished to burn). -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
08 Feb 2004 06:58:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:11:35 -0700, Anti-Septic <septicsucks@youknowit.com>
wrote:
Isn't it curious how all the embarrassing passages
from the OT are "Jewish, man made rules", but all
the passages they hold on to, like "homosexuality
is an abomination", is the inerrent word of God?
Hey, there ARE people who understand the man made laws, and then which one are
inerrant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anti-Septic" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
08 Feb 2004 10:49:17 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:11:35 -0700, Anti-Septic
<septicsucks@youknowit.com> wrote:
Isn't it curious how all the embarrassing passages
from the OT are "Jewish, man made rules", but all
the passages they hold on to, like "homosexuality
is an abomination", is the inerrent word of God?
Hey, there ARE people who understand the man made
laws, and then which one are inerrant.
Funny, because if you poll 100 different Christians,
you will probably get 100 different interpretations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "386sx" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
09 Feb 2004 12:52:53 AM |
|
|
Anti-Septic writes:
duke wrote:
Anti-Septic
Isn't it curious how all the embarrassing passages from the OT are
"Jewish, man made rules", but all the passages they hold on to, like
"homosexuality is an abomination", is the inerrent word of God?
Hey, there ARE people who understand the man made laws, and then which
one are inerrant.
Funny, because if you poll 100 different Christians, you will probably get
100 different interpretations.
Actually, that's an easy one to figure out. Faith is a disease which is
apparently transmitted by sacerdots.
--
"It's pretty simple to understand what our fellow human beings require,
because they're the same things we require for ourselves."
-- James A. Bartlett
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
09 Feb 2004 10:10:36 AM |
|
|
386sx wrote:
Anti-Septic writes:
duke wrote:
Anti-Septic
Isn't it curious how all the embarrassing passages from the OT are
"Jewish, man made rules", but all the passages they hold on to, like
"homosexuality is an abomination", is the inerrent word of God?
Hey, there ARE people who understand the man made laws, and then which
one are inerrant.
Funny, because if you poll 100 different Christians, you will probably get
100 different interpretations.
Actually, that's an easy one to figure out. Faith is a disease which is
apparently transmitted by sacerdots.
===>Yes, faith is a sacerdotally transmitted disease. ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
10 Feb 2004 05:24:27 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:52:53 -0500, 386sx <386sx@email.com> wrote:
Hey, there ARE people who understand the man made laws, and then which
one are inerrant.
Funny, because if you poll 100 different Christians, you will probably get
100 different interpretations.
Actually, that's an easy one to figure out. Faith is a disease which is
apparently transmitted by sacerdots.
Ok, no sign of intelligence in this one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
09 Feb 2004 10:09:22 AM |
|
|
Anti-Septic wrote:
duke wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:11:35 -0700, Anti-Septic
<septicsucks@youknowit.com> wrote:
Isn't it curious how all the embarrassing passages
from the OT are "Jewish, man made rules", but all
the passages they hold on to, like "homosexuality
is an abomination", is the inerrent word of God?
Hey, there ARE people who understand the man made
laws, and then which one are inerrant.
Funny, because if you poll 100 different Christians,
you will probably get 100 different interpretations.
===>Because "God" is a subjective FEELING for them,
so each has his/her own "God". -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
10 Feb 2004 05:27:20 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:09:22 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Funny, because if you poll 100 different Christians,
you will probably get 100 different interpretations.
===>Because "God" is a subjective FEELING for them,
so each has his/her own "God". -- L.
And you'll be subject(ive) to a feeling you definitely don't want to feel one
moment after you die when you stand to answer for what you did in the flesh.
Remember, it's a one way ticket, and once you get it, there is no return ticket.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... WISHFUL STUPIDITY |
11 Feb 2004 10:56:53 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:09:22 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Funny, because if you poll 100 different Christians,
you will probably get 100 different interpretations.
===>Because "God" is a subjective FEELING for them,
so each has his/her own "God". -- L.
And you'll be subject(ive) to a feeling you definitely don't want to feel one
moment after you die when you stand to answer for what you did in the flesh.
Remember, it's a one way ticket, and once you get it, there is no return ticket.
===>Wishful stupidity.
"Because to all there is one event,
to the upright man and to the evil,
to the clean and to the unclean,
to him who makes an offering
and to him who makes no offering;
as is the good so is the sinner;
he who takes an oath is as he who has fear of it.
....there is one fate for all...
The living are conscious that death will come to them,
but the dead are not conscious of anything,
and they no longer have a reward, because
there is no memory of them."
(From "The Word of God" -- Ecclesiastes 9:2, ff)
Libertarius
============
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... WISHFUL STUPIDITY |
13 Feb 2004 05:10:46 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:56:53 GMT, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Remember, it's a one way ticket, and once you get it, there is no return ticket.
===>Wishful stupidity.
Why is that, libby?
"Because to all there is one event,
to the upright man and to the evil,
to the clean and to the unclean,
to him who makes an offering
and to him who makes no offering;
as is the good so is the sinner;
he who takes an oath is as he who has fear of it.
...there is one fate for all...
The living are conscious that death will come to them,
but the dead are not conscious of anything,
and they no longer have a reward, because
there is no memory of them."
(From "The Word of God" -- Ecclesiastes 9:2, ff)
Libertarius
Uh, say libby, uh, uh - you do realize that that is the reason for God becoming
man in the person of Christ, don't you. For the Jew (Ecclesiastes is OT), there
is no salvation under the old covenant. Christ returned salvation to mankind's
world with his death on the cross - ie, he said "It is finished". And started a
new covenant (agreement) with man. Now we Christians are the beneficiary of
that act.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... WISHFUL STUPIDITY |
13 Feb 2004 09:47:51 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 05:10:46 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:56:53 GMT, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Remember, it's a one way ticket, and once you get it, there is no return ticket.
===>Wishful stupidity.
Why is that, libby?
"Because to all there is one event,
to the upright man and to the evil,
to the clean and to the unclean,
to him who makes an offering
and to him who makes no offering;
as is the good so is the sinner;
he who takes an oath is as he who has fear of it.
...there is one fate for all...
The living are conscious that death will come to them,
but the dead are not conscious of anything,
and they no longer have a reward, because
there is no memory of them."
(From "The Word of God" -- Ecclesiastes 9:2, ff)
Libertarius
Uh, say libby, uh, uh - you do realize that that is the reason for God becoming
man in the person of Christ, don't you. For the Jew (Ecclesiastes is OT), there
is no salvation under the old covenant. Christ returned salvation to mankind's
world with his death on the cross - ie, he said "It is finished". And started a
new covenant (agreement) with man. Now we Christians are the beneficiary of
that act.
According to the above Bible quote people did not go to heaven or
hell. According to your answer then Jesus made it possible for some
people to go to hell. That certainly was nice of him.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... WISHFUL STUPIDITY |
13 Feb 2004 11:33:22 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:56:53 GMT, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Remember, it's a one way ticket, and once you get it, there is no return ticket.
===>Wishful stupidity.
Why is that, libby?
"Because to all there is one event,
to the upright man and to the evil,
to the clean and to the unclean,
to him who makes an offering
and to him who makes no offering;
as is the good so is the sinner;
he who takes an oath is as he who has fear of it.
...there is one fate for all...
The living are conscious that death will come to them,
but the dead are not conscious of anything,
and they no longer have a reward, because
there is no memory of them."
(From "The Word of God" -- Ecclesiastes 9:2, ff)
Libertarius
Uh, say libby, uh, uh - you do realize that that is the reason for God becoming
man in the person of Christ, don't you.
===>That is the reason humans have been inventing such
"god-men", since the time of the Egyptian OSIRIS.
For the Jew (Ecclesiastes is OT), there
is no salvation under the old covenant.
===>THAT IS IDIOTIC!
The text talks about the HUMAN CONDITION,
not about "the Jew"!
Christ returned salvation to mankind's
world with his death on the cross - ie, he said "It is finished".
===>HE was "finished"!
A man, executed for seditious political activities.
Saul/Paul and his followers made yet another Pagan
savior god out of him.
And started a
new covenant (agreement) with man. Now we Christians are the beneficiary of
that act.
===>PIE IN THE SKY!
Saul/Paul convinced his followers they would not die, because his
"Christ" was going to appear in their lifetime.
That was over 19 centuries ago!
A BIG LIE!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
10 Feb 2004 05:23:46 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:49:17 -0700, Anti-Septic <septicsucks@youknowit.com>
wrote:
Isn't it curious how all the embarrassing passages
from the OT are "Jewish, man made rules", but all
the passages they hold on to, like "homosexuality
is an abomination", is the inerrent word of God?
Hey, there ARE people who understand the man made
laws, and then which one are inerrant.
Funny, because if you poll 100 different Christians,
you will probably get 100 different interpretations.
Why poll Christians? You said Jewish manmade laws.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
09 Feb 2004 10:00:37 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:11:35 -0700, Anti-Septic
<septicsucks@youknowit.com> wrote:
Isn't it curious how all the embarrassing passages
from the OT are "Jewish, man made rules", but all
the passages they hold on to, like "homosexuality
is an abomination", is the inerrent word of God?
Hey, there ARE people who understand the man made laws, and then which one
are inerrant.
Yes, they are ALL man made and many of them badly made at that.
--
Losers to the right of me, losers to the left of me
and the air is filled with kooks.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
08 Feb 2004 06:57:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:54:45 -0800, John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote:
Surely you dont' expect to get anywheres which wild unfounded statements like
failed ministry.
With you? No. But I can recommend quite persuasive scholarly arguments
to anyone who can read for meaning.
Ah, whenever the argument gets to insult, I know I've won. You have nothing
else to fall on.
The Jews were into cannibalism were they?
Ok, you have no answer I see.
That was a question.
You still don't know.
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any
blood.
Jewish man-made rule.
Sure was.
But the Jews believed it to be handed down from God
Nope - they were man made to use to judge by men if men were properly honoring
God.
Leviticus 7:26 You must not eat any blood whatever, either of bird or
of animal, in any of your settlements. 27 Any one of you who eats any
blood shall be cut off from your kin.
Jewish man-made rule
Sure was.
But the Jews believed it to be handed down from God, and still do!
No they don't.
Blood was considered the "thing of life" in the Jewish community, and hence a
violaton of their covenant with God to so consume.
Exactly. So what would have happened to a holy man who proposed such a
thing?
He didn't - he said no.
On the other hand the Gentiles had no problems with such a concept.
That's why they were gentiles.
Everyone's laughing at you duke. You're a fool.
When one of you laughs at me, I consider that a badge of honor.
You are the ones of ignorance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
09 Feb 2004 05:20:40 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:57:08 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:54:45 -0800, John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote:
Surely you dont' expect to get anywheres which wild unfounded statements like
failed ministry.
With you? No. But I can recommend quite persuasive scholarly arguments
to anyone who can read for meaning.
Ah, whenever the argument gets to insult, I know I've won. You have nothing
else to fall on.
Question: Whose posts have been getting shorter and shorter lately,
offering no riposte to argument after argument?
The Jews were into cannibalism were they?
Ok, you have no answer I see.
That was a question.
You still don't know.
Yes I do. They were not.
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any
blood.
Jewish man-made rule.
Sure was.
But the Jews believed it to be handed down from God
Nope - they were man made to use to judge by men if men were properly honoring
God.
Leviticus 7:22The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 23 Speak to the people
of Israel, saying: You shall eat no fat of ox or sheep or goat. 24 The
fat of an animal that died or was torn by wild animals may be put to
any other use, but you must not eat it. 25 If any one of you eats the
fat from an animal of which an offering by fire may be made to the
LORD, you who eat it shall be cut off from your kin. 26 You must not
eat any blood whatever, either of bird or of animal, in any of your
settlements. 27 Any one of you who eats any blood shall be cut off
from your kin.
You don't really read your Bible do you duke? You just claim to know
it and then get shot down when you pontificate on the subject.
"The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: " is what the Bible states. Yes
it's a man-made rule, but do you really think the Jews admit that?
Not to this very day!
Leviticus 7:26 You must not eat any blood whatever, either of bird or
of animal, in any of your settlements. 27 Any one of you who eats any
blood shall be cut off from your kin.
Jewish man-made rule
Sure was.
But the Jews believed it to be handed down from God, and still do!
No they don't.
Now he's telling us what the Jews believe folks!
Blood was considered the "thing of life" in the Jewish community, and hence a
violaton of their covenant with God to so consume.
Exactly. So what would have happened to a holy man who proposed such a
thing?
He didn't - he said no.
Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and
after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said,
“Take, eat; this is my body.”
Ritual symbolic cannibalism. Or, if you're a transubstantiationalist
--as Catholics are supposed to be according to church dogma--
actual ritual cannibalism.
27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them,
saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the
covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
On the other hand the Gentiles had no problems with such a concept.
That's why they were gentiles.
They were Gentiles because they weren't Jews you ignoramus!
Everyone's laughing at you duke. You're a fool.
When one of you laughs at me, I consider that a badge of honor.
You are the ones of ignorance.
But it's you who keeps shooting himself in the foot.
## Faith enslaves thought so as not to be troubled by doubt
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
10 Feb 2004 05:45:40 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 03:20:40 -0800, John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote:
Ah, whenever the argument gets to insult, I know I've won. You have nothing
else to fall on.
Question: Whose posts have been getting shorter and shorter lately,
offering no riposte to argument after argument?
Question: What atheists arguments continue to be empty and nothing but
children's insults and I get tired of point out to them they have no argument,
just insult.
The Jews were into cannibalism were they?
Ok, you have no answer I see.
That was a question.
You still don't know.
Yes I do. They were not.
That's right, the Jews were not into cannibalism.
But the Jews believed it to be handed down from God
Nope - they were man made to use to judge by men if men were properly honoring
God.
Leviticus 7:22The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 23 Speak to the people
of Israel, saying: You shall eat no fat of ox or sheep or goat. 24 The
fat of an animal that died or was torn by wild animals may be put to
any other use, but you must not eat it. 25 If any one of you eats the
fat from an animal of which an offering by fire may be made to the
LORD, you who eat it shall be cut off from your kin. 26 You must not
eat any blood whatever, either of bird or of animal, in any of your
settlements. 27 Any one of you who eats any blood shall be cut off
from your kin.
Leviticus is God's guidebook for his newly redeemed people, showing them how to
worship, serve, and obey a holy God.
You don't really read your Bible do you duke? You just claim to know
it and then get shot down when you pontificate on the subject.
What you don't realize is that, as prophezised in the whold OT, is that a
messiah will come. 2000 years ago, he came and completed this old covenant
basis the blood of animals and started a new covenant. Thus the worship of God
is called for, and not a regular reading of the "old ways". They have been set
aside.
The new covenant now calls us to "love one another as God loves us", and this
new covenant replaces the old. the old was sealed with the blood sacrifice of
unblemished animals, and the new is seal with the blood of the new Lamb of God,
Christ.
"The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: " is what the Bible states. Yes
it's a man-made rule, but do you really think the Jews admit that?
Not to this very day!
I'm not a Jew.
Leviticus 7:26 You must not eat any blood whatever, either of bird or
of animal, in any of your settlements. 27 Any one of you who eats any
blood shall be cut off from your kin.
Jewish man-made rule
Sure was.
But the Jews believed it to be handed down from God, and still do!
No they don't.
Keep going. Eventually you'll get to the point where "work" had to be definied
so one knows if he "worked" on the sabbath. And then you'll find the definition
of work: carrying 3 fig leaves one mile.
Now he's telling us what the Jews believe folks!
We all see what you don't know, but that's what I've been telling you anyway.
Blood was considered the "thing of life" in the Jewish community, and hence a
violaton of their covenant with God to so consume.
Exactly. So what would have happened to a holy man who proposed such a
thing?
He didn't - he said no.
Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and
after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said,
“Take, eat; this is my body.”
Ritual symbolic cannibalism. Or, if you're a transubstantiationalist
--as Catholics are supposed to be according to church dogma--
actual ritual cannibalism.
27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them,
saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the
covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Yep, God did say that.
On the other hand the Gentiles had no problems with such a concept.
That's why they were gentiles.
They were Gentiles because they weren't Jews you ignoramus!
You're confusing your stories. Before Christianty, gentiles became Jews. After
Christ, one had to convert to a Jew before becoming a Christian. Then the
Jewish faith was bypassed.
Everyone's laughing at you duke. You're a fool.
When one of you laughs at me, I consider that a badge of honor.
You are the ones of ignorance.
But it's you who keeps shooting himself in the foot.
Not a chance. Your weak knowledge is well exposing itself right now. Tomorrow
we'll discuss the Exodus and Jesus saying "This is my body - take, eat, for it
is given for you".
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
11 Feb 2004 06:17:09 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:45:40 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
Ah, whenever the argument gets to insult, I know I've won. You have nothing
else to fall on.
Question: Whose posts have been getting shorter and shorter lately,
offering no riposte to argument after argument?
Question: What atheists arguments continue to be empty and nothing but
children's insults and I get tired of point out to them they have no argument,
just insult.
You haven't shown them to be empty. You haven't responded to them at
all. You just ignore them and prate merrily on, talking up your good
game.
The Jews were into cannibalism were they?
Ok, you have no answer I see.
That was a question.
You still don't know.
Yes I do. They were not.
That's right, the Jews were not into cannibalism.
But the Gospels portray quite devout Jews, the apostles, meekly
accepting the concept.
But the Jews believed it to be handed down from God
Nope - they were man made to use to judge by men if men were properly honoring
God.
Leviticus 7:22The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 23 Speak to the people
of Israel, saying: You shall eat no fat of ox or sheep or goat. 24 The
fat of an animal that died or was torn by wild animals may be put to
any other use, but you must not eat it. 25 If any one of you eats the
fat from an animal of which an offering by fire may be made to the
LORD, you who eat it shall be cut off from your kin. 26 You must not
eat any blood whatever, either of bird or of animal, in any of your
settlements. 27 Any one of you who eats any blood shall be cut off
from your kin.
Leviticus is God's guidebook for his newly redeemed people,
showing them how to worship, serve, and obey a holy God.
First you said the Law was man made. Now you say it's God's
guidebook. Make up your mind! Which is it?
You don't really read your Bible do you duke? You just claim to know
it and then get shot down when you pontificate on the subject.
What you don't realize is that, as prophezised in the whold OT, is that a
messiah will come.
And he didn't.
2000 years ago, he came and completed this old covenant
basis the blood of animals and started a new covenant.
Well that's the obfuscation Paul sold to pagan congregations, but the
Jews knew better. They knew that the messiah was not to be a god but a
mortal man, a secular ruler of the House of David. God appointed, but
still a man, not a deity.
Thus the worship of God
is called for, and not a regular reading of the "old ways".
They have been set aside.
And you're dodging the issue. First you declare the Law to be man
made. Then you say it's God's instructions but it's obsolete.
God forbade the drinking of blood at one time but now he doesn't?
The new covenant now calls us to "love one another as God loves us", and this
new covenant replaces the old. the old was sealed with the blood sacrifice of
unblemished animals, and the new is seal with the blood of the new Lamb of God,
Christ.
And it's all superstitious nonsense.
"The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: " is what the Bible states. Yes
it's a man-made rule, but do you really think the Jews admit that?
Not to this very day!
I'm not a Jew.
And you don't know your Bible very well.
Leviticus 7:26 You must not eat any blood whatever, either of bird or
of animal, in any of your settlements. 27 Any one of you who eats any
blood shall be cut off from your kin.
Jewish man-made rule
Sure was.
But the Jews believed it to be handed down from God, and still do!
No they don't.
Keep going. Eventually you'll get to the point where "work" had to be definied
so one knows if he "worked" on the sabbath. And then you'll find the definition
of work: carrying 3 fig leaves one mile.
And your point is?
Now he's telling us what the Jews believe folks!
We all see what you don't know, but that's what I've been telling you anyway.
Let the kibitzer judge.
Blood was considered the "thing of life" in the Jewish community, and hence a
violaton of their covenant with God to so consume.
Exactly. So what would have happened to a holy man who proposed such a
thing?
He didn't - he said no.
Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and
after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said,
“Take, eat; this is my body.”
Ritual symbolic cannibalism. Or, if you're a transubstantiationalist
--as Catholics are supposed to be according to church dogma--
actual ritual cannibalism.
27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them,
saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the
covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Yep, God did say that.
No, a Gospel writer claimed Rabbi Y'shua ben Yussef said it, and that
contention is not credible. The concept of ritual symbolic cannibalism
is a pagan one.
On the other hand the Gentiles had no problems with such a concept.
That's why they were gentiles.
They were Gentiles because they weren't Jews you ignoramus!
You're confusing your stories. Before Christianty, gentiles became Jews. After
Christ, one had to convert to a Jew before becoming a Christian. Then the
Jewish faith was bypassed.
Gentile, n
often capitalized : a person of a non-Jewish nation or of non-Jewish
faith; especially a Christian as distinguished from a Jew
Everyone's laughing at you duke. You're a fool.
When one of you laughs at me, I consider that a badge of honor.
You are the ones of ignorance.
But it's you who keeps shooting himself in the foot.
Not a chance. Your weak knowledge is well exposing itself right now. Tomorrow
we'll discuss the Exodus and Jesus saying "This is my body - take, eat, for it
is given for you".
Said he, proudly displaying his panoply of ignorance.
## There is no creed so false, but faith can make it true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
11 Feb 2004 05:44:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:17:09 -0800, John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote:
Question: Whose posts have been getting shorter and shorter lately,
offering no riposte to argument after argument?
Question: What atheists arguments continue to be empty and nothing but
children's insults and I get tired of point out to them they have no argument,
just insult.
You haven't shown them to be empty. You haven't responded to them at
all. You just ignore them and prate merrily on, talking up your good
game.
You haven't shown them to have any substance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
11 Feb 2004 11:53:32 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<1hfl20hh5qu0il4jjse8ief8hlqu5k0rft@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:17:09 -0800, John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote:
Question: Whose posts have been getting shorter and shorter lately,
offering no riposte to argument after argument?
Question: What atheists arguments continue to be empty and nothing but
children's insults and I get tired of point out to them they have no argument,
just insult.
You haven't shown them to be empty. You haven't responded to them at
all. You just ignore them and prate merrily on, talking up your good
game.
You haven't shown them to have any substance.
You claim they lack substance; prove it, or concede you're lying
again. And please take a course in basic English.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
02 Feb 2004 10:15:34 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 06:44:47 -0800, John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 07:24:14 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
demiurge, n
1 capitalized a : a Platonic subordinate deity who fashions the
sensible world in the light of eternal ideas b : a Gnostic
subordinate deity who is the creator of the material world
2 : one that is an autonomous creative force or decisive power
It still says "supreme creator".
It?
Yep. Plato used some good words. But he was just a man, and not that learned,
expecially when compared to the word of God..
===>What you call the "Word of God" is just the words of men, ILLITERATE
compared to Plato!
Call him God, or Howard, or any name you
choose.
Who are we talking about? The creator of the earth or the creator of
the universe? Suppose it isn't the same being?
Oh, it is. There is only one supreme being. and he created the heavens and the
earth and everything in and associated with it.
===>Even the Bible has differing stories.
Genesis 1 says it was the ELOHIM.
Genesis 2 says it was YHWH.
John 1 says it was the LOGOS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
03 Feb 2004 04:44:59 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:15:34 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Yep. Plato used some good words. But he was just a man, and not that learned,
expecially when compared to the word of God..
===>What you call the "Word of God" is just the words of men, ILLITERATE
compared to Plato!
What you call the word of plato is just the word of an illiterate man compared
to God.
===>Even the Bible has differing stories.
Genesis 1 says it was the ELOHIM.
Genesis 2 says it was YHWH.
John 1 says it was the LOGOS.
Not very bright, libby. Two of his other names are God Almighty, and the
Creator. Doesn't change the fact of who he is.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... ILLITERATES |
03 Feb 2004 10:31:39 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:15:34 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Yep. Plato used some good words. But he was just a man, and not that learned,
expecially when compared to the word of God..
===>What you call the "Word of God" is just the words of men, ILLITERATE
compared to Plato!
What you call the word of plato is just the word of an illiterate man compared
to God.
===>SO, what if your imaginary deity is more "literate".
That does not make the writers of the material in the Bible
any more literate.
Probably the only truly literate author was the fellow who wrote
ECCLESIASTES. He appears to have learned some Greek
(Epicurean) philosophy.
===>Even the Bible has differing stories.
Genesis 1 says it was the ELOHIM.
Genesis 2 says it was YHWH.
John 1 says it was the LOGOS.
Not very bright, libby. Two of his other names are God Almighty, and the
Creator. Doesn't change the fact of who he is.
===>Ignorant. What is translated as "God Almighty" is EL SHADDAI,
which means the GOD OF BREASTS, originally a FEMALE DEITY,
probably the "Queen of Heaven" referred to by the tyrant Yahwist Jeremiah.
Libertarius
=============
| | | |
