| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"James" |
| Date: |
19 Nov 2006 11:31:30 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Simple Question (9) |
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>
Re: Simple Question
In article <y_AZg.3646$4T6.1070@trnddc02>,
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
How do you identify a false religion?
That would be the religion of anyone who doesn't agree with me. {;-)
Hello,
As to a more serious note, here was my response to the poster. See if
it makes any Scriptural sense to you:
"Many are easily identified by their "fruit"- by their conduct, etc.
Jesus explained it this way at Mt 7:15-20,
"15. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes
from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17. Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears
bad fruit.
18. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear
good fruit.
19. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown
into the fire.
20. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." (NIV)
For example, if a religion professes to be Christian, and yet supports
the wars of this world, they are directly going against Jesus' words
at Mt 5:44,
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
you," (NASB)
Instead of 'loving' their enemies, they try to spread out his guts on
a battlefield. (or worse) Their 'fruit' shows them to be just what
they are; a false religion.
Of course when one is in the true religion (like Jesus' disciples were
in the first century), it is easier to recognize false religions that
are much different than yours. (like the pagan religions around those
first century Christians)
At any rate, there are some things to look for than one would
logically expect of a true religion. For instance, if God wanted
everyone to follow Him, then He would make sure that everyone would
get the opportunity to hear about Him and learn about Him etc.
Interestingly, the Bible is in more languages and widely distributed
than any other religious book. As the World Book Encyclopedia puts it:
"The Bible is the most widely distributed book in history. It has also
been translated more times, and into more languages, than any other
book."
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************"
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
18 Jan 2007 08:58:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:22:28 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On 17 Jan 2007 21:35:25 -0800, in alt.atheism
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote in
Well, let's talk about the earthen ramp over the city wall at Lachish.
Do you think the Assyrians built the ramp the way the Bible says? Or
are you saying that an earthen ramp cannot be called objective
evidence?
It is possible that the ramp was built as stated. Clearly an earthen
ramp is evidence that an earthen ramp was built. What are you attempting
to persuade me to accept with this?
He thinks that if any 3 words in the Bible are true, that's objective
evidence that every word is true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
19 Jan 2007 12:34:29 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:22:28 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On 17 Jan 2007 21:35:25 -0800, in alt.atheism
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote in
Well, let's talk about the earthen ramp over the city wall at Lachish.
Do you think the Assyrians built the ramp the way the Bible says? Or
are you saying that an earthen ramp cannot be called objective
evidence?
It is possible that the ramp was built as stated. Clearly an earthen
ramp is evidence that an earthen ramp was built. What are you attempting
to persuade me to accept with this?
He thinks that if any 3 words in the Bible are true, that's objective
evidence that every word is true.
At the very least, it is proof that three words are true.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
15 Jan 2007 07:26:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:06:45 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 14:05:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1168898717.810949.262050@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>:
Al Klein wrote:
On 14 Jan 2007 19:57:46 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
A number of kingdoms mentioned in the Bible also existed, but just
because Egypt was real, that doesn't mean that Moses led the liberation
of the Hebrew slaves.
We were talking about Hezekiah's tunnel. Why did you try to change the
subject?
The subject is whether the special claims of the Bible are true.
Hezekiah's tunnel is what doesn't belong.
Well, we already established that Hezekiah's tunnel is special. So
what do you think about this special claim in Isaiah that there is a
conduit for water between Gihon spring and the pool of Siloam?
No, you haven't. It's a tunnel. There is no evidence that Hezekiah was
actually responsible for its construction.
And, even if he were, SOMEONE was, so why not him?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
16 Jan 2007 06:40:38 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:06:45 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 14:05:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1168898717.810949.262050@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>:
Al Klein wrote:
On 14 Jan 2007 19:57:46 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
A number of kingdoms mentioned in the Bible also existed, but just
because Egypt was real, that doesn't mean that Moses led the liberation
of the Hebrew slaves.
We were talking about Hezekiah's tunnel. Why did you try to change the
subject?
The subject is whether the special claims of the Bible are true.
Hezekiah's tunnel is what doesn't belong.
Well, we already established that Hezekiah's tunnel is special. So
what do you think about this special claim in Isaiah that there is a
conduit for water between Gihon spring and the pool of Siloam?
No, you haven't. It's a tunnel. There is no evidence that Hezekiah was
actually responsible for its construction.
And, even if he were, SOMEONE was, so why not him?
Well, I don't really think that we can accept your churlish comments as
an admission of existence. Isaiah said this about churls: No more
will the churl be called liberal.
We can see how right Isaiah was by your comments on slavery.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
14 Jan 2007 10:54:22 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2007 19:57:46 -0800, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1168833466.468540.86410@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 14 Jan 2007 09:25:23 -0800, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1168795523.755026.57390@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Al Klein wrote:
On 13 Jan 2007 06:23:17 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Jan 2007 15:23:04 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Jan 2007 22:24:21 -0800, wrote:
Well, you go first. You had some assertations about Nazareth you were
going to defend.
Try Judges 13:5.
Read <http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/630>.
Read <http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html>
Read the Bible in Greek.
Not much of a defense. Samson was a Nazarite. Some atheist thinks
that Jesus was a myth. Some archeologists dug up some things they do
not understand. The Bible was translated from Greek into English. So
how does all this prove that Nazareth did not exist?
The proof that a town named Nazareth didn't exist 2,000 years ago in
the place Nazareth exists is the fact that 2,000 years ago that piece
of land was a cemetery. Cemeteries aren't towns, especially when
they're the cemetery of another, nearby town.
So maybe a town named Nazereth existed ten miles away.
Evidence?
I have no idea
No, you don't - but you make assertions anyway.
the Bible said
Evidence that what the Bible says is true?
Well, we see here another one of the devices that atheists think is
clever. The Bible says that there was a town named Nazereth. Sorry if
that offends you. What have you decided about Hezekiah's tunnel? Does
Hezekiah's tunnel exist?
A number of kingdoms mentioned in the Bible also existed, but just
because Egypt was real, that doesn't mean that Moses led the liberation
of the Hebrew slaves.
We were talking about Hezekiah's tunnel. Why did you try to change the
subject?
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
15 Jan 2007 10:57:10 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 14 Jan 2007 19:57:46 -0800, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1168833466.468540.86410@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 14 Jan 2007 09:25:23 -0800, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1168795523.755026.57390@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Al Klein wrote:
On 13 Jan 2007 06:23:17 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Jan 2007 15:23:04 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Jan 2007 22:24:21 -0800, wrote:
Well, you go first. You had some assertations about Nazareth you were
going to defend.
Try Judges 13:5.
Read <http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/630>.
Read <http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html>
Read the Bible in Greek.
Not much of a defense. Samson was a Nazarite. Some atheist thinks
that Jesus was a myth. Some archeologists dug up some things they do
not understand. The Bible was translated from Greek into English. So
how does all this prove that Nazareth did not exist?
The proof that a town named Nazareth didn't exist 2,000 years ago in
the place Nazareth exists is the fact that 2,000 years ago that piece
of land was a cemetery. Cemeteries aren't towns, especially when
they're the cemetery of another, nearby town.
So maybe a town named Nazereth existed ten miles away.
Evidence?
I have no idea
No, you don't - but you make assertions anyway.
the Bible said
Evidence that what the Bible says is true?
Well, we see here another one of the devices that atheists think is
clever. The Bible says that there was a town named Nazereth. Sorry if
that offends you. What have you decided about Hezekiah's tunnel? Does
Hezekiah's tunnel exist?
A number of kingdoms mentioned in the Bible also existed, but just
because Egypt was real, that doesn't mean that Moses led the liberation
of the Hebrew slaves.
We were talking about Hezekiah's tunnel. Why did you try to change the
subject?
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
15 Jan 2007 03:46:50 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
16 Jan 2007 01:16:48 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Oh, EXTRAORDINARY claims. Well, didn't you think Hezekiah's tunnel was
extraordinary? Anyway, if you will not concede something ordinary, why
are we supposed to believe you would condede something EXTRAORDINARY?
I think we should talk about Hezekiah's tunnel some more.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
15 Jan 2007 03:58:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:50 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Both.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
16 Jan 2007 01:37:42 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:50 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Both.
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
16 Jan 2007 03:54:37 PM |
|
|
<> wrote in message
news:1168976262.547697.55660@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:50 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Both.
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
It's all in your imagination.
Name one atheist who got upset about the mention of a tunnel.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
"Faith doesn't move mountains - it levels buildings"
"The Universe isn't about us." - Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 12:46:52 AM |
|
|
Steve O wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1168976262.547697.55660@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:50 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Both.
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
It's all in your imagination.
Name one atheist who got upset about the mention of a tunnel.
Well, you all get upset when your claim that nothing in the Bible can
be proven by objective means is shown to be false.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 05:44:46 AM |
|
|
<> wrote in message
news:1169016412.668175.323550@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Steve O wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1168976262.547697.55660@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:50 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist
says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's
tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Both.
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
It's all in your imagination.
Name one atheist who got upset about the mention of a tunnel.
Well, you all get upset when your claim that nothing in the Bible can
be proven by objective means is shown to be false.
Robert B. Winn
The only person who is making that claim is you.
You know perfectly well that atheists are referring to the special claims in
the bible, yet you choose to lie and twists facts for Jesus don't you?
Typical lying theist tactic we have come to know well here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 06:13:19 AM |
|
|
Steve O wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1169016412.668175.323550@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Steve O wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1168976262.547697.55660@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:50 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist
says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's
tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Both.
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
It's all in your imagination.
Name one atheist who got upset about the mention of a tunnel.
Well, you all get upset when your claim that nothing in the Bible can
be proven by objective means is shown to be false.
Robert B. Winn
The only person who is making that claim is you.
You know perfectly well that atheists are referring to the special claims in
the bible, yet you choose to lie and twists facts for Jesus don't you?
Typical lying theist tactic we have come to know well here.
The only thing you have come to know well is your ability to make
accusations.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
16 Jan 2007 04:29:17 PM |
|
|
Steve O wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1168976262.547697.55660@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:50 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Both.
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
It's all in your imagination.
Name one atheist who got upset about the mention of a tunnel.
===>RB has tunnel vision. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
16 Jan 2007 04:34:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:50 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Both.
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
===>You have tunnel vision, RB.
No one cares about that old tunnel. -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 12:53:13 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:50 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Both.
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
===>You have tunnel vision, RB.
No one cares about that old tunnel. -- L.
Do you not care about the tunnel because you claim it does not exist or
because it does exist?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 04:39:54 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:50 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Both.
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
===>You have tunnel vision, RB.
No one cares about that old tunnel. -- L.
Do you not care about the tunnel because you claim it does not exist or
because it does exist?
===>I care not either way.
It makes no difference. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 06:37:40 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:50 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Both.
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
===>You have tunnel vision, RB.
No one cares about that old tunnel. -- L.
Do you not care about the tunnel because you claim it does not exist or
because it does exist?
===>I care not either way.
It makes no difference. -- L.
Well, there you have it. That is why we spend so much time discussing
Hezekiah's tunnel.
Maybe if you cared a little more we could discuss something else.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 05:48:37 AM |
|
|
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
===>You have tunnel vision, RB.
No one cares about that old tunnel. -- L.
Do you not care about the tunnel because you claim it does not exist or
because it does exist?
Robert B. Winn
The funny thing here is that you keep bangimg on about this tunnel,
desperately hoping that some atheist will take the bait and tell you to shut
the ***** up, simply so you can then claim that atheists get upset about the
existence of the tunnel.
Well, Robert - no one has taken the bait yet - we aren't that dumb- it's
part of the reason we are atheists.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
"Faith doesn't move mountains - it levels buildings"
"The Universe isn't about us." - Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 06:16:51 AM |
|
|
Steve O wrote:
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
===>You have tunnel vision, RB.
No one cares about that old tunnel. -- L.
Do you not care about the tunnel because you claim it does not exist or
because it does exist?
Robert B. Winn
The funny thing here is that you keep bangimg on about this tunnel,
desperately hoping that some atheist will take the bait and tell you to shut
the ***** up, simply so you can then claim that atheists get upset about the
existence of the tunnel.
Well, Robert - no one has taken the bait yet - we aren't that dumb- it's
part of the reason we are atheists.
Wonderful. Then we can keep talking about the tunnel. I think it is
amazing to find something described in the Bible that can be discussed
with atheists without them being able to change the subject when they
decide they do not want to talk about it.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 09:09:25 AM |
|
|
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1169036211.635880.47640@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Steve O wrote:
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when
it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
===>You have tunnel vision, RB.
No one cares about that old tunnel. -- L.
Do you not care about the tunnel because you claim it does not exist or
because it does exist?
Robert B. Winn
The funny thing here is that you keep bangimg on about this tunnel,
desperately hoping that some atheist will take the bait and tell you to
shut
the ***** up, simply so you can then claim that atheists get upset about
the
existence of the tunnel.
Well, Robert - no one has taken the bait yet - we aren't that dumb- it's
part of the reason we are atheists.
Wonderful. Then we can keep talking about the tunnel. I think it is
amazing to find something described in the Bible that can be discussed
with atheists without them being able to change the subject when they
decide they do not want to talk about it.
Robert B. Winn
I always thought that being an ignorant theist was one of the worse things
anyone could possibly be.
You've taken that a step further by being ignorant AND boring.
Talk about your tunnel all you like - it simply isn't interesting or
relative to anything no matter how much you insist it is.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
"Faith doesn't move mountains - it levels buildings"
"The Universe isn't about us." - Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 01:19:22 PM |
|
|
Steve O wrote:
<rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1169036211.635880.47640@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Steve O wrote:
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when
it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
===>You have tunnel vision, RB.
No one cares about that old tunnel. -- L.
Do you not care about the tunnel because you claim it does not exist or
because it does exist?
Robert B. Winn
The funny thing here is that you keep bangimg on about this tunnel,
desperately hoping that some atheist will take the bait and tell you to
shut
the ***** up, simply so you can then claim that atheists get upset about
the
existence of the tunnel.
Well, Robert - no one has taken the bait yet - we aren't that dumb- it's
part of the reason we are atheists.
Wonderful. Then we can keep talking about the tunnel. I think it is
amazing to find something described in the Bible that can be discussed
with atheists without them being able to change the subject when they
decide they do not want to talk about it.
Robert B. Winn
I always thought that being an ignorant theist was one of the worse things
anyone could possibly be.
You've taken that a step further by being ignorant AND boring.
Talk about your tunnel all you like - it simply isn't interesting or
relative to anything no matter how much you insist it is.
See, Steve, even though you wanted to change the subject to something
else, we are still talking about Hezekiah's tunnel. I find that
amazing. As you said, all you have to do to change the subject is say
that the tunnel does not exist, it is only a myth, etc. I think I have
made great strides toward communicating with atheists, although I
cannot say I have ever done it yet.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 04:54:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Steve O wrote:
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
===>You have tunnel vision, RB.
No one cares about that old tunnel. -- L.
Do you not care about the tunnel because you claim it does not exist or
because it does exist?
Robert B. Winn
The funny thing here is that you keep bangimg on about this tunnel,
desperately hoping that some atheist will take the bait and tell you to shut
the ***** up, simply so you can then claim that atheists get upset about the
existence of the tunnel.
Well, Robert - no one has taken the bait yet - we aren't that dumb- it's
part of the reason we are atheists.
Wonderful. Then we can keep talking about the tunnel. I think it is
amazing to find something described in the Bible that can be discussed
with atheists without them being able to change the subject when they
decide they do not want to talk about it.
===>You can discuss Kansas City and tornadoes decribed
in the Wizard of OZ, but it does not make it true! -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 06:54:19 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
Steve O wrote:
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
===>You have tunnel vision, RB.
No one cares about that old tunnel. -- L.
Do you not care about the tunnel because you claim it does not exist or
because it does exist?
Robert B. Winn
The funny thing here is that you keep bangimg on about this tunnel,
desperately hoping that some atheist will take the bait and tell you to shut
the ***** up, simply so you can then claim that atheists get upset about the
existence of the tunnel.
Well, Robert - no one has taken the bait yet - we aren't that dumb- it's
part of the reason we are atheists.
Wonderful. Then we can keep talking about the tunnel. I think it is
amazing to find something described in the Bible that can be discussed
with atheists without them being able to change the subject when they
decide they do not want to talk about it.
===>You can discuss Kansas City and tornadoes decribed
in the Wizard of OZ, but it does not make it true! -- L.
See what you did. Immediately you try to change the subject to the
Wizard of Oz. But it dies not work. We were discussing Hezekiah's
tunnel, not the Wizard of Oz. I think after we run through this
several thousand times you will start to get the idea.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
16 Jan 2007 06:27:19 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:34:20 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:50 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Both.
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
Winn is lying yet again.
What is it with these psychopaths?
It's the same mentality as the Paki-bashers we had when I was in my
early teens, or the KKK harrassing black people.
===>You have tunnel vision, RB.
No one cares about that old tunnel. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 12:58:26 AM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:34:20 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:50 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Both.
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
Winn is lying yet again.
What is it with these psychopaths?
It's the same mentality as the Paki-bashers we had when I was in my
early teens, or the KKK harrassing black people.
Al Klein is the one who is trying to promote slavery, not me.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 06:29:26 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jan 2007 22:58:26 -0800, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1169017106.869382.208730@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:34:20 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:50 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Both.
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
Winn is lying yet again.
What is it with these psychopaths?
It's the same mentality as the Paki-bashers we had when I was in my
early teens, or the KKK harrassing black people.
Al Klein is the one who is trying to promote slavery, not me.
As you know, you are bearing false witness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
17 Jan 2007 11:29:58 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 16 Jan 2007 22:58:26 -0800, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<1169017106.869382.208730@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:34:20 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:50 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 08:57:10 -0800, wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Could you explain your obsession with the tunnel?
Well, what I like about the tunnel is that every time an atheist says
that there is nothing in the Bible that can be proven with objective
evidence I can just say, Did you want to talk about Hezekiah's tunnel?
But, since the claim is that the EXTRAORDINARY claims in the Bible
can't be proven with objective evidence, you're merely bearing false
witness again. Or is that "false witless"? The only possible
explanations are that you're unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably
stupid.
Both.
What I really like about the tunnel is how upset atheists get when it
is mentioned.
Robert B. Winn
Winn is lying yet again.
What is it with these psychopaths?
It's the same mentality as the Paki-bashers we had when I was in my
early teens, or the KKK harrassing black people.
Al Klein is the one who is trying to promote slavery, not me.
As you know, you are bearing false witness.
No, I am not bearing false witness. Al Klein says that the Supre | | | | | | | | | | |
