Religions > Bible > Re: The Truth About Mother Theresa, with CITATION (was Re: Teresa revisited)
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Sam" |
| Date: |
13 Sep 2003 10:09:53 AM |
| Object: |
Re: The Truth About Mother Theresa, with CITATION (was Re: Teresa revisited) |
I think you need to get a life, webgiant, if the thing you have to
spend your time on is bashing Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa has done a
lot of good to people, probably a lot more than YOU have. You can find
imperfections with ALL of us and use that to bash them. The Bible says
that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. That would
also include a great humanitarian such as Mother Teresa. Our good
works are not what saves us, but it is through faith in Jesus, Who
paid the penalty for our sins. We are called to do works, though, out
of our faith in Christ. Mother Teresa sacrificed a lot to help
humanity. Was she perfect? The answer is no. Just like all of us, she
needed Christ to save her from her sins. Her good works, as great as
they were, didn't redeem her from her sin. Jesus is the One who took
her sins upon himself. With Christ, she was able to do good for
humanity. She was not perfect but I believe that she trusted in Jesus
to save her from her sins. I believe that God enabled her to do much
good for humanity.
-Sam
.
|
|
| User: "webgiant" |
|
| Title: Re: The Truth About Mother Theresa, with CITATION (was Re: Teresa revisited) |
17 Sep 2003 09:53:29 AM |
|
|
On 13 Sep 2003 08:09:53 -0700,
Sam <sa836284@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
I think you need to get a life, webgiant,
if the thing you have to spend your time
on is bashing Mother Teresa.
Blah blah blah. If you can't answer by
specifics, ad hominem the *****, right?
Mother Teresa has done a lot of good to
people,
<SARCASM>
Yeah, thats why the natives to Calcutta
called her the "Ghoul of Calcutta".
</SARCASM>
probably a lot more than YOU have.
I've probably done just as much good as
Mother Theresa ever did.
Now, good by definition of the Catholic
Church? Sure, but the Catholic Church
says denying abortion to a woman to
save her life is "good". Denying her
contraception to help prevent the need
for the abortion in the first place is
"good".
What the world as a whole defines as "good"
and what the Catholic Church defines as
"good", are frequently two different things.
You can find imperfections with ALL of
us and use that to bash them.
The only difference is that you are likely
to admit to your imperfections and not
consider them "perfections".
Unlike Mother Theresa.
The Bible says that all have sinned
and fall short of the glory of God.
That would also include a great
humanitarian such as Mother Teresa.
Except that she frequently claimed to be
"doing good" when she was actually "doing
evil". Depriving people of a minister of
their choice in their dying hour.
*Deliberately* choosing to misdiagnose
children (with horrible consequences for
the *children*) just to uphold some silly
"vow of poverty" that wasn't violated by
using the FREE diagnosis charts.
The only difference between Mother Theresa
and myself is that I don't pretend being
evil to people is actually good.
Our good works are not what saves us,
but it is through faith in Jesus, Who
paid the penalty for our sins.
And clearly Mother Theresa believed that
good works weren't necessary to her own
salvation.
Otherwise she would have done more than
a few of them.
We are called to do works, though, out
of our faith in Christ.
Apparently Mother Theresa wasn't
*listening* to that particular message.
Mother Teresa sacrificed a lot to help
humanity.
Yes, she sacrificed the proper health
care of her patients. She sacrificed
the proper pain alleviation of her
patients. She sacrificed none of her
time raising money for her cause. She
sacrificed the comfort of her patients.
Interesting, how most of what she
sacrificed WASN'T HERS to sacrifice.
Fortunately, she didn't have to sacrifice
HER OWN comfort and health care. The Swiss
offered, and she accepted, $10,000 in
oil to anoint her feet for burial, when the
oil could have been sold and provided money
for dozens of her patients.
Err, I mean $10,000 in health care.
Was she perfect? The answer is no.
Just like all of us, she needed Christ
to save her from her sins.
Mother Theresa more than most, apparently.
Her good works, as great as they were,
As minor as they were, you mean, compared
to the much more massive number of evil
acts she committed on the people of
Calcutta.
didn't redeem her from her sin.
There wasn't enough "good works" by
Mother Theresa to counteract the
evil she did in her life, frequently
performed by her claiming it was
"good".
Denying a man painkillers because
"thats Jesus kissing you"? When the
man probably had no concept of who
this Jesus character from the Gospel
novels really was?
And you think that this TORTURE of a
human being is "good works"?
Mother Theresa certainly did!
Jesus is the One who took her sins
upon himself. With Christ, she was
able to do good for humanity.
But not for Calcutta, where she was
working.
Pity, that Calcutta didn't get the
benefit of these mythical "good works"
Mother Theresa allegedly did.
She was not perfect but I believe
that she trusted in Jesus to save
her from her sins.
I think she did too, since what
few minor good works she performed
certainly weren't enough to do
anything about her evil. Of course,
all of her "evil" wasn't considered
to be "sins" by the Catholic Church,
so by definition she was a very good
*Catholic*, even though she wasn't a
very good *person*.
I believe that God enabled her to
do much good for humanity.
Only by definition of the Catholic
Church, which until recently declared
that the Sun moved around the Earth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: The Truth About Mother Theresa, with CITATION (was Re: Teresa revisited) |
24 Sep 2003 12:09:31 PM |
|
|
Was she perfect? The answer is no.
Just like all of us, she needed Christ
to save her from her sins.
Webgiant says:
Mother Theresa more than most, apparently.
my post:
Her good works, as great as they were,
Webgiant:
As minor as they were, you mean, compared
to the much more massive number of evil
acts she committed on the people of
Calcutta.
If Mother Teresa didn't go to Calcutta then more people would have
probably staved to death there.
my post:
didn't redeem her from her sin.
Webgiant:
There wasn't enough "good works" by
Mother Theresa to counteract the
evil she did in her life, frequently
performed by her claiming it was
"good".
You also don't have enough good works to make up for the evil you have
done. Neither do I. That is why Jesus'sacrifice for our sins is
neccesary. I'm glad that you realize that Mother Teresa's good works
aren't enough to save her but the same is true for me and you. If you
don't agree with this then I have a question for you. Do you believe
that you are better than Mother Teresa? If you do believe that you are
better than her then that would be arrogance.
Denying a man painkillers because
"thats Jesus kissing you"? When the
man probably had no concept of who
this Jesus character from the Gospel
novels really was?
I don't agree with denying a man painkillers but if it wasn't for
Mother Teresa's work then the man might not have ANY medical care but
is left to starve and suffer without medical care.
And you think that this TORTURE of a
human being is "good works"?
Mother Theresa certainly did!
my post:
Jesus is the One who took her sins
upon himself. With Christ, she was
able to do good for humanity.
Webgiant:
But not for Calcutta, where she was
working.
Pity, that Calcutta didn't get the
benefit of these mythical "good works"
Mother Theresa allegedly did.
Do you believe that a person is better left on the streets to starve?
That is where more people would probably be if it wasn't for Mother
Teresa's work.
my post:
She was not perfect but I believe
that she trusted in Jesus to save
her from her sins.
Webgiant:
I think she did too, since what
few minor good works she performed
certainly weren't enough to do
anything about her evil.
The same is true for me and you. We have rebelled against God and our
good works can't make us right with God. However, we can be justified
though faith in Jesus. Our faith will then lead us to do good works.
Good works don't save us but they show our faith. If we have true
faith then works will natually flow from that.
Of course,
all of her "evil" wasn't considered
to be "sins" by the Catholic Church,
so by definition she was a very good
*Catholic*, even though she wasn't a
very good *person*.
my post:
I believe that God enabled her to
do much good for humanity.
Webgiant:
Only by definition of the Catholic
Church, which until recently declared
that the Sun moved around the Earth.
I'm not a Catholic and I don't agree with all Catholic doctrine but
that was a cheap shot. Who cares what they thought about the sun and
earth in the past?
Past opinions about the science of the universe has nothing to do with
what we are talking about.
-Sam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob SD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Truth About Mother Theresa, with CITATION (was Re: Teresa revisited) |
24 Sep 2003 01:31:34 PM |
|
|
(Sam) wrote in
news:5b6a2e7d.0309240909.272e0142@posting.google.com:
Was she perfect? The answer is no.
Just like all of us, she needed Christ
to save her from her sins.
Webgiant says:
Mother Theresa more than most, apparently.
my post:
Her good works, as great as they were,
Webgiant:
As minor as they were, you mean, compared
to the much more massive number of evil
acts she committed on the people of
Calcutta.
If Mother Teresa didn't go to Calcutta then more people would have
probably staved to death there.
I wonder how many more people suffered in Calcutta because she was there
and because of her being there? Plenty, I'll bet.
my post:
didn't redeem her from her sin.
Webgiant:
There wasn't enough "good works" by
Mother Theresa to counteract the
evil she did in her life, frequently
performed by her claiming it was
"good".
You also don't have enough good works to make up for the evil you have
done. Neither do I. That is why Jesus'sacrifice for our sins is
neccesary. I'm glad that you realize that Mother Teresa's good works
aren't enough to save her but the same is true for me and you. If you
don't agree with this then I have a question for you. Do you believe
that you are better than Mother Teresa? If you do believe that you are
better than her then that would be arrogance.
jesus is dead and teresa is dead. You are living in the past. Wake up
and live for now.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: The Truth About Mother Theresa, with CITATION (was Re: Teresa revisited) |
25 Sep 2003 08:46:24 AM |
|
|
Webgiant:
There wasn't enough "good works" by
Mother Theresa to counteract the
evil she did in her life, frequently
performed by her claiming it was
"good".
my post:
You also don't have enough good works to make up for the evil you have
done. Neither do I. That is why Jesus'sacrifice for our sins is
neccesary. I'm glad that you realize that Mother Teresa's good works
aren't enough to save her but the same is true for me and you. If you
don't agree with this then I have a question for you. Do you believe
that you are better than Mother Teresa? If you do believe that you are
better than her then that would be arrogance.
Bob says:
jesus is dead and teresa is dead. You are living in the past. Wake up
and live for now.
I am living in the present. Jesus is Alive. You're the one living in
the past by claiming that Jesus is dead. He rose from the dead.
-Sam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob SD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Truth About Mother Theresa, with CITATION (was Re: Teresa revisited) |
25 Sep 2003 09:36:43 AM |
|
|
(Sam) wrote in
news:5b6a2e7d.0309250546.6fd1e4b4@posting.google.com:
Webgiant:
There wasn't enough "good works" by
Mother Theresa to counteract the
evil she did in her life, frequently
performed by her claiming it was
"good".
my post:
You also don't have enough good works to make up for the evil you
have
done. Neither do I. That is why Jesus'sacrifice for our sins is
neccesary. I'm glad that you realize that Mother Teresa's good works
aren't enough to save her but the same is true for me and you. If you
don't agree with this then I have a question for you. Do you believe
that you are better than Mother Teresa? If you do believe that you
are
better than her then that would be arrogance.
Bob says:
jesus is dead and teresa is dead. You are living in the past. Wake up
and live for now.
I am living in the present.
Hardly.
Jesus is Alive.
He is?
You're the one living in
the past by claiming that Jesus is dead. He rose from the dead.
-Sam
Oh? Where is your jesus then? What does a two-thousand year old man look
like? Is he in a carnival sideshow somewhere?
Have you ever considered seeking professional help for your delusions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
25 Sep 2003 03:04:14 PM |
|
|
Webgiant says:
There wasn't enough "good works" by
Mother Theresa to counteract the
evil she did in her life, frequently
performed by her claiming it was
"good".
my post:
You also don't have enough good works to make up for the evil you
have
done. Neither do I. That is why Jesus'sacrifice for our sins is
neccesary. I'm glad that you realize that Mother Teresa's good works
aren't enough to save her but the same is true for me and you. If you
don't agree with this then I have a question for you. Do you believe
that you are better than Mother Teresa? If you do believe that you
are
better than her then that would be arrogance.
Bob says:
jesus is dead and teresa is dead. You are living in the past. Wake up
and live for now.
my post
I am living in the present.
Bob says:
Hardly.
My post:
Jesus is Alive.
Bob says:
He is?
my post:
You're the one living in
the past by claiming that Jesus is dead. He rose from the dead.
Bob says:
Oh? Where is your jesus then? What does a two-thousand year old man look
like? Is he in a carnival sideshow somewhere?
Have you ever considered seeking professional help for your delusions?
It is NOT delusions, Bob. It's not a delusion either on my part or on
the part of the disciples but you already have a preconceived notion
against the truth of Jesus. It looks like your predjudice is NOT based
on sound logic but on a preconceived prejudice against the truth of
Jesus. I'm not trying to bash you but trying to show that your
conclusions aren't based on sound reasoning but on a preconceived
notion against the truth of Jesus Christ. Your statement which said,
"Have you ever considered seeking professional help for your
delusions?" shows that you already have a prejudice against the truth
of the Christian faith. Do you believe that you being intelligent with
unintelligent comments like that? You don't have to agree with me to
talk and if I want to talk about this intelligently I might be
interested but if you are just going to make unitelligent, bashing
comments like your statement above then I believe that I have a better
use of my time than to engage in your trolling. I'm not trying to be
harsh but if you refuse to engage conversation in a civilized and at
least somewhat intelligent way then that amounts to trolling in my
opinion. As far as atheism goes, it takes a lot of faith to believe
that. It is not any more rational than the Christian faith. Well, we
got off the conversation of abortion, which is the topic of 2 of the
newsgroups. For the purpose of not doing off-topic posting, I probably
should make a comment on that. People of various religious
afiilitations, including some atheists, see the baby in the womb as a
human being and that his/her life should be saved. Here is the
testimony from the U.S. House of Represenatives website of a woman who
survived the attempt to kill her in abortion. I'm glad that she
survived. I hope that more babies survive.
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/jess0720.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob SD" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
25 Sep 2003 03:42:51 PM |
|
|
(Sam) wrote in
news:5b6a2e7d.0309251204.456b08cc@posting.google.com:
Webgiant says:
There wasn't enough "good works" by
Mother Theresa to counteract the
evil she did in her life, frequently
performed by her claiming it was
"good".
my post:
You also don't have enough good works to make up for the evil
you
have
done. Neither do I. That is why Jesus'sacrifice for our sins is
neccesary. I'm glad that you realize that Mother Teresa's good
works aren't enough to save her but the same is true for me and
you. If you don't agree with this then I have a question for
you. Do you believe that you are better than Mother Teresa? If
you do believe that you
are
better than her then that would be arrogance.
Bob says:
jesus is dead and teresa is dead. You are living in the past.
Wake up and live for now.
my post
I am living in the present.
Bob says:
Hardly.
My post:
Jesus is Alive.
Bob says:
He is?
my post:
You're the one living in
the past by claiming that Jesus is dead. He rose from the dead.
Bob says:
Oh? Where is your jesus then? What does a two-thousand year old man
look like? Is he in a carnival sideshow somewhere?
Have you ever considered seeking professional help for your
delusions?
It is NOT delusions, Bob. It's not a delusion either on my part or on
the part of the disciples but you already have a preconceived notion
against the truth of Jesus. It looks like your predjudice is NOT based
on sound logic but on a preconceived prejudice against the truth of
Jesus. I'm not trying to bash you but trying to show that your
conclusions aren't based on sound reasoning but on a preconceived
notion against the truth of Jesus Christ. Your statement which said,
"Have you ever considered seeking professional help for your
delusions?" shows that you already have a prejudice against the truth
of the Christian faith. Do you believe that you being intelligent with
unintelligent comments like that? You don't have to agree with me to
talk and if I want to talk about this intelligently I might be
interested but if you are just going to make unitelligent, bashing
comments like your statement above then I believe that I have a better
use of my time than to engage in your trolling. I'm not trying to be
harsh but if you refuse to engage conversation in a civilized and at
least somewhat intelligent way then that amounts to trolling in my
opinion. As far as atheism goes, it takes a lot of faith to believe
that. It is not any more rational than the Christian faith. Well, we
got off the conversation of abortion, which is the topic of 2 of the
newsgroups. For the purpose of not doing off-topic posting, I probably
should make a comment on that. People of various religious
afiilitations, including some atheists, see the baby in the womb as a
human being and that his/her life should be saved. Here is the
testimony from the U.S. House of Represenatives website of a woman who
survived the attempt to kill her in abortion. I'm glad that she
survived. I hope that more babies survive.
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/jess0720.htm
Take your two thousand year old live jesus crap somewhere else then. It
has no basis in fact nor any place in this abortion-choice newsgroup.
As for the abortion-choice issue, try minding your own business and
staying out of other peoples personal and private reproductive decisions.
I will do the same.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
25 Sep 2003 08:42:20 PM |
|
|
Bob <SD> wrote in message news:<Xns94018B852E90ASD@153.80.109.11>...
sa836284@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Sam) wrote in
Take your two thousand year old live jesus crap somewhere else then. It
has no basis in fact nor any place in this abortion-choice newsgroup.
As for the abortion-choice issue, try minding your own business and
staying out of other peoples personal and private reproductive decisions.
I will do the same.
Jesus was an historical figure, just as many of your leftist heroes
were historical figures. We'll be on the lookout for you quoting any
of them in that by the same token what they say has no basis in fact
either.
If it's of interest, our laws regulate and proscribe all types of
personal and private decisions where they might impinge upon the
rights and lives of others. You have an argument with what society
might choose to regulate or outlaw, not with Jesus. This battle is
still being fought, sir, just as the slavery battle was fought. That
was once legal in many states, too, and was a personal and private
decision. If you should lose this fight, you and your crowd will
damned well abide by laws regulating certain private decisions whether
you like it or not - or go to jail. Cordially, Marie
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
25 Sep 2003 10:26:04 PM |
|
|
"Marie A." <LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1dc521ed.0309251742.3233d40a@posting.google.com...
Bob <SD> wrote in message news:<Xns94018B852E90ASD@153.80.109.11>...
sa836284@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Sam) wrote in
Take your two thousand year old live jesus crap somewhere else then. It
has no basis in fact nor any place in this abortion-choice newsgroup.
As for the abortion-choice issue, try minding your own business and
staying out of other peoples personal and private reproductive
decisions.
I will do the same.
Jesus was an historical figure, just as many of your leftist heroes
were historical figures. We'll be on the lookout for you quoting any
of them in that by the same token what they say has no basis in fact
either.
Jesus is not now and never will be used as an example for his historical
significance. He is used for his religious significance. Performing miracles
and rising from the dead are not documented historical fact, nor is his
claim of godhood. Sam is referring to it as a "truth"; it is merely a
legend. When we start quoting any historical figure and claiming that they
are God and you must obey them, feel free to object.
In the meantime the views of a VERY long- dead Jew have nothing to do with
the rights of this 30- year- old pagan, or anyone else for that matter.
If it's of interest, our laws regulate and proscribe all types of
personal and private decisions where they might impinge upon the
rights and lives of others. You have an argument with what society
might choose to regulate or outlaw, not with Jesus. This battle is
still being fought, sir, just as the slavery battle was fought. That
was once legal in many states, too, and was a personal and private
decision. If you should lose this fight, you and your crowd will
damned well abide by laws regulating certain private decisions whether
you like it or not - or go to jail. Cordially, Marie
Or just leave the country, or go to an illegal abortionist. Doesn't matter.
It isn't going to happen, Marie, like it or not.
I see two things of interest here- one, that you would bring up slavery
while fighting to enslave people; and two, that you should demand that we
obey the laws or go to jail, although you whine when we send the woman-
haters to jail for harassing women at clinics (or shooting doctors).
How do you reconcile this?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob SD" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
25 Sep 2003 11:59:47 PM |
|
|
(Marie A.) wrote in
news:1dc521ed.0309251742.3233d40a@posting.google.com:
Bob <SD> wrote in message news:<Xns94018B852E90ASD@153.80.109.11>...
sa836284@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Sam) wrote in
Take your two thousand year old live jesus crap somewhere else then.
It has no basis in fact nor any place in this abortion-choice
newsgroup.
As for the abortion-choice issue, try minding your own business and
staying out of other peoples personal and private reproductive
decisions. I will do the same.
Jesus was an historical figure, just as many of your leftist heroes
were historical figures. We'll be on the lookout for you quoting any
of them in that by the same token what they say has no basis in fact
either.
But you will agre that he is a *dead* historical figure, right?
And we also note that you conveniently (or purposely) cut out the original
poster's looney rantings. Go back and read what the original poster said
about jesus being alive now. Did you cut it out due to embarassment?
If it's of interest, our laws regulate and proscribe all types of
personal and private decisions where they might impinge upon the
rights and lives of others. You have an argument with what society
might choose to regulate or outlaw, not with Jesus. This battle is
still being fought, sir, just as the slavery battle was fought. That
was once legal in many states, too, and was a personal and private
decision. If you should lose this fight, you and your crowd will
damned well abide by laws regulating certain private decisions whether
you like it or not - or go to jail. Cordially, Marie
Hmmm. Seems like the only ones going to jail (and death row) nowdays are
the looney anti-choice terrorists who bomb clinics and kill innocent
doctors and clinic workers. wwjd?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
26 Sep 2003 01:35:07 PM |
|
|
(Marie A.) wrote...
Jesus was an historical figure,
Document or retract! ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
26 Sep 2003 01:47:34 PM |
|
|
On 26 Sep 2003 11:35:07 -0700 in alt.atheism, Spartakus
(spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com (Marie A.) wrote...
Jesus was an historical figure,
Document or retract! ;-)
and correct the grammar while you're at it.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
26 Sep 2003 06:30:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:47:34 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On 26 Sep 2003 11:35:07 -0700 in alt.atheism, Spartakus
(spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com (Marie A.) wrote...
Jesus was an historical figure,
Document or retract! ;-)
and correct the grammar while you're at it.
Actually, Marie's grammar was correct, if old-fashioned by today's
standards.
.
|
|
|
| User: "webgiant" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
27 Sep 2003 07:10:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:30:20 GMT,
Christopher A Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Spartakus (spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus)) wrote:
LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com (Marie A.) wrote...
Jesus was an historical figure,
Document or retract! ;-)
and correct the grammar while you're at it.
Actually, Marie's grammar was correct,
if old-fashioned by today's standards.
Are you kidding? The use of "an" with a
word that does not begin with a VOWEL?
Here's proper grammar:
Use "A" when word begins with a CONSONANT.
Use "AN" when word begins with a VOWEL.
Thus correct grammar stipulates that her
sentence is WRONG:
"Jesus was an historical figure,"
because HISTORICAL does not begin with
A, E, I, O, or U. Or even Y, for those
using really old definitions of "vowel".
The correct grammatical statement would have
been:
"Jesus was A historical figure,"
even though the statement itself is
incorrect.
(BTW, great acting in "Lord of the Rings". :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
27 Sep 2003 07:31:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:10:35 +0000, webgiant wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:30:20 GMT,
Christopher A Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Spartakus (spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus)) wrote:
LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com (Marie A.) wrote...
Jesus was an historical figure,
Document or retract! ;-)
and correct the grammar while you're at it.
Actually, Marie's grammar was correct,
if old-fashioned by today's standards.
Are you kidding? The use of "an" with a
word that does not begin with a VOWEL?
Here's proper grammar:
Use "A" when word begins with a CONSONANT.
Use "AN" when word begins with a VOWEL.
Thus correct grammar stipulates that her
sentence is WRONG:
"Jesus was an historical figure,"
because HISTORICAL does not begin with
A, E, I, O, or U. Or even Y, for those
using really old definitions of "vowel".
The correct grammatical statement would have
been:
"Jesus was A historical figure,"
even though the statement itself is
incorrect.
(BTW, great acting in "Lord of the Rings". :)
Uh, no, sorry. It is now falling out of use but has long been considered
to be proper to use an "an" before words beginning with an "h." Marie's
usage is correct though not common.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
27 Sep 2003 07:42:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 19:31:35 -0500, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:10:35 +0000, webgiant wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:30:20 GMT,
Christopher A Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Spartakus (spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus)) wrote:
LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com (Marie A.) wrote...
Jesus was an historical figure,
Document or retract! ;-)
and correct the grammar while you're at it.
Actually, Marie's grammar was correct,
if old-fashioned by today's standards.
Are you kidding? The use of "an" with a
word that does not begin with a VOWEL?
Here's proper grammar:
Use "A" when word begins with a CONSONANT.
Use "AN" when word begins with a VOWEL.
Thus correct grammar stipulates that her
sentence is WRONG:
"Jesus was an historical figure,"
because HISTORICAL does not begin with
A, E, I, O, or U. Or even Y, for those
using really old definitions of "vowel".
The correct grammatical statement would have
been:
"Jesus was A historical figure,"
even though the statement itself is
incorrect.
(BTW, great acting in "Lord of the Rings". :)
Uh, no, sorry. It is now falling out of use but has long been considered
to be proper to use an "an" before words beginning with an "h." Marie's
usage is correct though not common.
Okay, it's actually that "a" is used before a consonant *sound while "an"
is used before a vowel *sound. Which is one reason we tend toward "a
union" in that "u" is pronounced with a glide that strikes people as more
consonant like.
We still use "an" before words that begin with "h" but in which the "h" is
not pronounced such as "an heir." But it was taught previously that "an"
is proper in the case of "historical" and I can recall being taught that
myself.
It's fallen out of common use but you do still see it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
28 Sep 2003 01:16:12 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 19:42:59 -0500 in alt.atheism, Mark K. Bilbo
("Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 19:31:35 -0500, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:10:35 +0000, webgiant wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:30:20 GMT,
Christopher A Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Spartakus (spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus)) wrote:
LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com (Marie A.) wrote...
Jesus was an historical figure,
Document or retract! ;-)
and correct the grammar while you're at it.
Actually, Marie's grammar was correct,
if old-fashioned by today's standards.
Are you kidding? The use of "an" with a
word that does not begin with a VOWEL?
Here's proper grammar:
Use "A" when word begins with a CONSONANT.
Use "AN" when word begins with a VOWEL.
Thus correct grammar stipulates that her
sentence is WRONG:
"Jesus was an historical figure,"
because HISTORICAL does not begin with
A, E, I, O, or U. Or even Y, for those
using really old definitions of "vowel".
The correct grammatical statement would have
been:
"Jesus was A historical figure,"
even though the statement itself is
incorrect.
(BTW, great acting in "Lord of the Rings". :)
Uh, no, sorry. It is now falling out of use but has long been considered
to be proper to use an "an" before words beginning with an "h." Marie's
usage is correct though not common.
Okay, it's actually that "a" is used before a consonant *sound while "an"
is used before a vowel *sound. Which is one reason we tend toward "a
union" in that "u" is pronounced with a glide that strikes people as more
consonant like.
We still use "an" before words that begin with "h" but in which the "h" is
not pronounced such as "an heir." But it was taught previously that "an"
is proper in the case of "historical" and I can recall being taught that
myself.
It's fallen out of common use but you do still see it...
ye may speak aright.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
28 Sep 2003 07:02:59 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 07:16:12 +0100, Therion Ware wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 19:42:59 -0500 in alt.atheism, Mark K. Bilbo
("Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 19:31:35 -0500, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:10:35 +0000, webgiant wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:30:20 GMT,
Christopher A Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Spartakus (spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus)) wrote:
LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com (Marie A.) wrote...
Jesus was an historical figure,
Document or retract! ;-)
and correct the grammar while you're at it.
Actually, Marie's grammar was correct,
if old-fashioned by today's standards.
Are you kidding? The use of "an" with a
word that does not begin with a VOWEL?
Here's proper grammar:
Use "A" when word begins with a CONSONANT.
Use "AN" when word begins with a VOWEL.
Thus correct grammar stipulates that her
sentence is WRONG:
"Jesus was an historical figure,"
because HISTORICAL does not begin with
A, E, I, O, or U. Or even Y, for those
using really old definitions of "vowel".
The correct grammatical statement would have
been:
"Jesus was A historical figure,"
even though the statement itself is
incorrect.
(BTW, great acting in "Lord of the Rings". :)
Uh, no, sorry. It is now falling out of use but has long been considered
to be proper to use an "an" before words beginning with an "h." Marie's
usage is correct though not common.
Okay, it's actually that "a" is used before a consonant *sound while "an"
is used before a vowel *sound. Which is one reason we tend toward "a
union" in that "u" is pronounced with a glide that strikes people as more
consonant like.
We still use "an" before words that begin with "h" but in which the "h" is
not pronounced such as "an heir." But it was taught previously that "an"
is proper in the case of "historical" and I can recall being taught that
myself.
It's fallen out of common use but you do still see it...
ye may speak aright.
Heh.
Funny thing about ye and you and thee and thou...
Years back, while I was still a fundie, I read some ranting pamphlet that
part of our problem with "kids these days" was that we weren't teaching
them "proper respect." Why, even in language everybody was using "you"
instead of being taught to address "god" as "thou."
Only problem with this is that "thou" is the *familiar and "you" the
formal...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
26 Sep 2003 02:02:07 AM |
|
|
On 25 Sep 2003 18:42:20 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Bob <SD> wrote in message news:<Xns94018B852E90ASD@153.80.109.11>...
sa836284@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Sam) wrote in
Take your two thousand year old live jesus crap somewhere else then. It
has no basis in fact nor any place in this abortion-choice newsgroup.
As for the abortion-choice issue, try minding your own business and
staying out of other peoples personal and private reproductive decisions.
I will do the same.
Jesus was an historical figure, just as many of your leftist heroes
were historical figures. We'll be on the lookout for you quoting any
of them in that by the same token what they say has no basis in fact
either.
Evidence that he was a historical figure?
.
|
|
|
| User: "webgiant" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
27 Sep 2003 07:05:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:02:07 GMT,
Christopher A Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com (Marie A.) wrote:
Bob <SD> wrote:
Take your two thousand year old live jesus
crap somewhere else then. It has no basis
in fact nor any place in this
abortion-choice newsgroup.
As for the abortion-choice issue, try
minding your own business and staying out
of other peoples personal and private
reproductive decisions. I will do the
same.
Jesus was an historical figure,
[snip!]
Evidence that he was a historical figure?
About the only thing these bible-freaks can
come up with is the historian and *devout Jew*,
Josephus, claiming that there's this guy Jesus
who *is* the Messiah.
Can you say "Christian addition to Josephus"?
Hint: devout Jews at the time of Josephus and
even today are *still waiting* for the Messiah
to come to save them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
27 Sep 2003 08:07:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:05:51 GMT, webgiant <webgiant@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:02:07 GMT,
Christopher A Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com (Marie A.) wrote:
Bob <SD> wrote:
Take your two thousand year old live jesus
crap somewhere else then. It has no basis
in fact nor any place in this
abortion-choice newsgroup.
As for the abortion-choice issue, try
minding your own business and staying out
of other peoples personal and private
reproductive decisions. I will do the
same.
Jesus was an historical figure,
[snip!]
Evidence that he was a historical figure?
About the only thing these bible-freaks can
come up with is the historian and *devout Jew*,
Josephus, claiming that there's this guy Jesus
who *is* the Messiah.
Can you say "Christian addition to Josephus"?
Hint: devout Jews at the time of Josephus and
even today are *still waiting* for the Messiah
to come to save them.
I know. It's pathetic really. It shows how ignorant the Christians who
use Josephus as "proof" are. Some of the marginally less dishonest
ones have tried to "reconstruct" what Josephus "really" wrote based on
little more than wishful thinking and the belief that he said
_something_ about him.
But the paragraph is completely out of context, and the surrounding
material flows more naturally without it.
And these are the ones who project their own bias onto us, accusing us
of being biased against it.
When most mainstrean Christians acknowledge the obvious flaws in it.
How many of the ones who in-our-face it would have heard of it if
MacDowell hadn't included it in his list of "evidences", none of which
actually are?
And how many of us would have heard of it if they hadn't tried to use
it as "proof"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
26 Sep 2003 08:35:46 AM |
|
|
On 25 Sep 2003 18:42:20 -0700, (Marie A.) cross
posted to
talk.abortion,alt.religion.christian,alt.bible,alt.christnet,alt.atheism,alt.abortion:
As for the abortion-choice issue, try minding your own business and
staying out of other peoples personal and private reproductive decisions.
I will do the same.
Jesus was an historical figure, just as many of your leftist heroes
were historical figures.
Sorry, but you need to back up both your statements with evidence.
"Leftist heroes" smells strongly to the question: 'do you still take
take it in the *****?'
We'll be on the lookout for you quoting any
of them in that by the same token what they say has no basis in fact
either.
Like "Jesus was an historical figure, ..." for example?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
25 Sep 2003 11:31:09 PM |
|
|
On 25 Sep 2003 18:42:20 -0700, (Marie A.) wrote:
Jesus was an historical figure, just as many of your leftist heroes
were historical figures.
Maybe. Maybe not. Some people have suggested that maybe he wasn't a historical
figure. I'm not entirely convinced by their argument, but they do put up a good
case:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
26 Sep 2003 08:09:23 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:42:20 -0700, Marie A. wrote:
Jesus was an historical figure
Where's the evidence for that?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laira" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
27 Sep 2003 12:59:36 AM |
|
|
(Sam) wrote in message news:<5b6a2e7d.0309251204.456b08cc@posting.google.com>...
Webgiant says:
There wasn't enough "good works" by
Mother Theresa to counteract the
evil she did in her life, frequently
performed by her claiming it was
"good".
my post:
You also don't have enough good works to make up for the evil you
have
done. Neither do I. That is why Jesus'sacrifice for our sins is
neccesary. I'm glad that you realize that Mother Teresa's good works
aren't enough to save her but the same is true for me and you. If you
don't agree with this then I have a question for you. Do you believe
that you are better than Mother Teresa? If you do believe that you
are
better than her then that would be arrogance.
Bob says:
jesus is dead and teresa is dead. You are living in the past. Wake up
and live for now.
my post
I am living in the present.
Bob says:
Hardly.
My post:
Jesus is Alive.
Bob says:
He is?
my post:
You're the one living in
the past by claiming that Jesus is dead. He rose from the dead.
Bob says:
Oh? Where is your jesus then? What does a two-thousand year old man look
like? Is he in a carnival sideshow somewhere?
Have you ever considered seeking professional help for your delusions?
It is NOT delusions, Bob. It's not a delusion either on my part or on
the part of the disciples but you already have a preconceived notion
against the truth of Jesus. It looks like your predjudice is NOT based
on sound logic but on a preconceived prejudice against the truth of
Jesus. I'm not trying to bash you but trying to show that your
conclusions aren't based on sound reasoning but on a preconceived
notion against the truth of Jesus Christ.
If you could prove the existance of God and the "truth of Jesus
Christ", then it wouldn't be religion, it would be either mathematics
or science. A religion requires BELIEF - blind belief. (Recall the
apostle who got scolded for not believing in Jesus rising from the
dead and wanting to stick his fingers in the wounds.) That step of
just blind faith, without proof, is something that you have to
understand - I mean REALLY understand - that not everyone will/can do,
and others will take different leaps of faith than you will. You can
use reasoning up to a point, but then there's a jump of faith you have
to make. I'm not jumping, and neither is he. If you make us fake
jumping at gunpoint, or call us stupid for not jumping, you're missing
the point.
Your statement which said,
"Have you ever considered seeking professional help for your
delusions?" shows that you already have a prejudice against the truth
of the Christian faith. Do you believe that you being intelligent with
unintelligent comments like that? You don't have to agree with me to
talk and if I want to talk about this intelligently I might be
interested but if you are just going to make unitelligent, bashing
comments like your statement above then I believe that I have a better
use of my time than to engage in your trolling. I'm not trying to be
harsh but if you refuse to engage conversation in a civilized and at
least somewhat intelligent way then that amounts to trolling in my
opinion. As far as atheism goes, it takes a lot of faith to believe
that. It is not any more rational than the Christian faith.
Realizing when you are doing a leap of pure faith, of assumption
without proof or evidence, is very important. You also need to know
how certain you are about your conclusions - you need some error
analysis. Saying "Ok, there is no evidence for any deity from any
religion - the simplest explanation is that there is no god" is
different from "I can prove that there is no god", for example. In the
first example, there are good inductive reasons to reach that
conclusion. It could be wrong, but it can be reached through tested
and tried conclusionmaking processes generally considered applicable
to pretty much everything. "The Christian God exists" requires
ignoring those conclusionmaking processes - i.e., faith.
Well, we
got off the conversation of abortion, which is the topic of 2 of the
newsgroups. For the purpose of not doing off-topic posting, I probably
should make a comment on that. People of various religious
afiilitations, including some atheists, see the baby in the womb as a
human being and that his/her life should be saved. Here is the
testimony from the U.S. House of Represenatives website of a woman who
survived the attempt to kill her in abortion. I'm glad that she
survived. I hope that more babies survive.
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/jess0720.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith, Reason and Abortion |
26 Sep 2003 08:35:43 AM |
|
|
On 25 Sep 2003 13:04:14 -0700, (Sam) cross
posted to
talk.abortion,alt.religion.christian,alt.bible,alt.christnet,alt.atheism,alt.abortion:
Have you ever considered seeking professional help for your delusions?
It is NOT delusions, Bob.
I'm afraid Bob is right, Sam.
It's not a delusion either on my part or on
the part of the disciples but you already have a preconceived notion
against the truth of Jesus.
Not really. I have a profound interest in that historical period. Can
you explain why your OT mentions 15 apostles, not 12? Any reason for
that number 12? Maybe symbolic?
Even that is mood. The theological interpretation of the 12 hand
picked apostles never survived the 2nd Century. The version of the
Johnny-come-late Paul, who was not an original apostle, is the founder
of your faith.
It looks like your predjudice is NOT based
on sound logic but on a preconceived prejudice against the truth of
Jesus.
Sorry, history does not agree with you.
I'm not trying to bash you but trying to show that your
conclusions aren't based on sound reasoning but on a preconceived
notion against the truth of Jesus Christ.
A preconceived notion has nothing to do with it.
Your statement which said,
"Have you ever considered seeking professional help for your
delusions?" shows that you already have a prejudice against the truth
of the Christian faith.
'fraid it does not. It is addressed to the person (that might be you,
but not necessarily so) posting unfounded assertions.
Nothing going to reply to this lengthy paragraph. Feel free to post
your proof about Jesus existence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Truth About Mother Theresa, with CITATION (was Re: Teresa revisited) |
26 Sep 2003 03:07:33 AM |
|
|
In article <5b6a2e7d.0309250546.6fd1e4b4@posting.google.com>, sa836284
@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says...
I am living in the present. Jesus is Alive. You're the one living in
the past by claiming that Jesus is dead. He rose from the dead.
How about some *objective* evidence that this Jesus chap is alive now
(or in fact ever was alive for that matter)... like current address, a
phone number, a photograph etc...
.... and if you can't come up with such evidence, why should anyone
believe you anymore than Bush/Blair were believed (by some fantasists
like yourself) about WMDs in Iraq a few months ago?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hate Feminism" |
|
| Title: Re: The Truth About Mother Theresa, with CITATION (was Re: Teresarevisited) |
26 Sep 2003 07:09:56 AM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <5b6a2e7d.0309250546.6fd1e4b4@posting.google.com>, sa836284
@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says...
I am living in the present. Jesus is Alive. You're the one living in
the past by claiming that Jesus is dead. He rose from the dead.
How about some *objective* evidence that this Jesus chap is alive now
(or in fact ever was alive for that matter)... like current address, a
phone number, a photograph etc...
... and if you can't come up with such evidence, why should anyone
believe you anymore than Bush/Blair were believed (by some fantasists
like yourself) about WMDs in Iraq a few months ago?
The fact that you claim there were no WMD in Iraq proves that you're a
liar.
No one's convinced by your posturing hindsight. It's all you've got,
afterall....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob SD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Truth About Mother Theresa, with CITATION (was Re: Teresa revisited) |
26 Sep 2003 10:42:13 AM |
|
|
Hate Feminism <feminism.sucks@a.com> wrote in news:3F742C94.1E735A90
@a.com:
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <5b6a2e7d.0309250546.6fd1e4b4@posting.google.com>, sa836284
@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says...
I am living in the present. Jesus is Alive. You're the one living in
the past by claiming that Jesus is dead. He rose from the dead.
How about some *objective* evidence that this Jesus chap is alive now
(or in fact ever was alive for that matter)... like current address, a
phone number, a photograph etc...
... and if you can't come up with such evidence, why should anyone
believe you anymore than Bush/Blair were believed (by some fantasists
like yourself) about WMDs in Iraq a few months ago?
The fact that you claim there were no WMD in Iraq proves that you're a
liar.
The only WMDs in Iraq were deliverd there by Americans.
No one's convinced by your posturing hindsight. It's all you've got,
afterall....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Truth About Mother Theresa, with CITATION (was Re: Teresa revisited) |
25 Sep 2003 05:06:19 PM |
|
|
On 25 Sep 2003 06:46:24 -0700, (Sam)
wrote:
Webgiant:
There wasn't enough "good works" by
Mother Theresa to counteract the
evil she did in her life, frequently
performed by her claiming it was
"good".
my post:
You also don't have enough good works to make up for the evil you have
done. Neither do I. That is why Jesus'sacrifice for our sins is
neccesary. I'm glad that you realize that Mother Teresa's good works
aren't enough to save her but the same is true for me and you. If you
don't agree with this then I have a question for you. Do you believe
that you are better than Mother Teresa? If you do believe that you are
better than her then that would be arrogance.
Bob says:
jesus is dead and teresa is dead. You are living in the past. Wake up
and live for now.
I am living in the present. Jesus is Alive. You're the one living in
the past by claiming that Jesus is dead. He rose from the dead.
Idiot. Jesus is merely part of your religion. I suggest you learn to
think outside of the box and learn where your religion stops and the
real world starts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
