Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?

Religions > Bible > Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 8 of 10

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Gactimus"
Date:	09 Dec 2004 01:14:57 AM
Object:	Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?

(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cp8s27$iq6$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Rump Ranger <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote:

Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:

I report, you decide.

Not all Christians are conservative (I'm a liberal Christian myself who
strongly dislikes the Christian coalition) nor are all liberals
atheists (a lot of moronic atheists voted for Bush despite his
theocratic nature, sadly). Although if I had to pick one, I'd take the
secular liberal over the right-wing Bible-thumpers anyday.

Jesus was a liberal.

Supporting fag marriage and abortion? Not likely.
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	16 Dec 2004 12:39:13 AM

Zaghadka <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote:

jwk

The notion that Christians are being persecuted is crap.

I have been mercilessly attacked in other threads for having the supposed
temerity to attest to the existence of God.

Self defense.

Persecution is all too real.

The notion that Christians are being persecuted is crap.

Christians in this country are being shat on,

Crap.

and
it only makes them stronger.

More rabid and bloodthirsty.

That is, IMHO, why Christ told us to love our
enemies.

Something which has done very, very, rarely.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "jwk"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	15 Dec 2004 04:29:21 PM

Zaghadka wrote:

jwk bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

The notion that Christians are being persecuted is crap.

I have been mercilessly attacked in other threads for having the

supposed

temerity to attest to the existence of God. There is one who is

claiming that

logic and historical record are irrelevant to counter my arguments.

So you are being dissed on usenet. That hardly counts as persecution.
Where else, pray tell, are you under attack?
Let's try an experiment - we both go into crowded, public places, shout
out our beliefs/lack of beliefs, and see who gets hasseled.
jwk
.

User: "Zaghadka"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	16 Dec 2004 12:23:18 AM

jwk bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

logic and historical record are irrelevant to counter my arguments.

So you are being dissed on usenet. That hardly counts as persecution.
Where else, pray tell, are you under attack?

Let's try an experiment - we both go into crowded, public places, shout
out our beliefs/lack of beliefs, and see who gets hasseled.

Both of us, of course. People in our culture don't like beliefs. The don't like
people who are certain. I'm actually working on this. I want to find a
different form of evangelism that doesn't crap on others and get one crapped
on.
In fact, that's part of why I am doing this. I'm sick of watching people throw
Bible's at each other and threatening each other with eternal hellfile. It's,
for lack of a better word, *****.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.

User: "RainLover"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	16 Dec 2004 09:06:57 AM

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:23:18 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

jwk bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

logic and historical record are irrelevant to counter my arguments.

So you are being dissed on usenet. That hardly counts as persecution.
Where else, pray tell, are you under attack?

Let's try an experiment - we both go into crowded, public places, shout
out our beliefs/lack of beliefs, and see who gets hasseled.

Both of us, of course. People in our culture don't like beliefs.

I disagree with you, Zag. People in this culture (USA) LOVE
beliefs... but, and this is a big 'but' that a lot of people just
don't get, but people in this culture feel that everyone should keep
their personal religious beliefs to themselves (and their like-minded
brethren).
This, of course, comes into direct CONFLICT when one group's personal
religious articles of faith include: "you must force non-believers to
OUR way of thinking, or at least make them Follow OUR articles of
faith"
How would Christians feel if Bush happened to be Muslim, and the
Muslim Right were changing the Laws to reflect Mosaic Law? Would you
feel somewhat threatened? I should hope you would!

The don't like
people who are certain. I'm actually working on this. I want to find a
different form of evangelism that doesn't crap on others and get one crapped
on.

And Many applaud your efforts. The problem ISN'T that you are certain
in your beliefs... the problem stems from the dogma that you must
'spread the word' to everyone else.
If you simply lived your life as your see fit as a Christian, others
would be drawn to you... to your faith. You don't see Muslims or
Buddhists or Taoists going door to door or preaching on street
corners, yet Muslim is the fastest growing religion in the world, and
the other two are growing as well.
If evangelism would stop PUSHING, people would stop pushing back.

In fact, that's part of why I am doing this. I'm sick of watching people throw
Bible's at each other and threatening each other with eternal hellfile. It's,
for lack of a better word, *****.

I for one had noted that you have NEVER threatened anyone here with
eternal hellfire and appreciate that fact. Thank you.
James, Seattle
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	16 Dec 2004 09:57:01 AM

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:06:57 -0800, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:23:18 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

jwk bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

logic and historical record are irrelevant to counter my arguments.

So you are being dissed on usenet. That hardly counts as persecution.
Where else, pray tell, are you under attack?

Let's try an experiment - we both go into crowded, public places, shout
out our beliefs/lack of beliefs, and see who gets hasseled.

Both of us, of course. People in our culture don't like beliefs.

Unfortunately evangelists, fundamentalists, mormons and JWs don't
think that.

This, of course, comes into direct CONFLICT when one group's personal
religious articles of faith include: "you must force non-believers to
OUR way of thinking, or at least make them Follow OUR articles of
faith"

They do it, but they're not equipped to do so because their religion
actively prevents them thinking outside the box, which is necessary
when talking outside it.
They have their own language where everyday words take on different
meanings, their own logic and their own reality.
None of which they can step aside from when dealing with people in the
world outside.
So they initiate discussions using these instead of real-world
meanings, logic etc. With people using the normal everyday meanings.
Which causes frustration, particularly for their audience in whose
personal space they have placed themselves, where the only POV that
counts is the audience's.
And they blame the audience for their own shortcomings. In the other
guy's personal space.
Or worse, they repeat the lies they have been told about why the other
guy "really" doesn't believe. In his own personal space.
Some of these lies are transparent attempts to gain control, again in
the other guy's personal space. Like acusations of hostility after
they've already behaved like jerks. They expect a "reasonable" person
to try to control it - taking their mind off examining what they say
and making them more receptive to suggestion. Straight out of
brainwashing 101, boot camp etc.
And they can't cope with the natural human resonse to all this.
I don't think it's deliberate, but the effect is to reinforce their
paranoid "the whole world is against us" complex fostered by the focus
on persecution and martyrdom.
So they feel safe and comforted when they get back into the fold.
Where they are insulated from a world that hates them. And are
unlikely to stray.

How would Christians feel if Bush happened to be Muslim, and the
Muslim Right were changing the Laws to reflect Mosaic Law? Would you
feel somewhat threatened? I should hope you would!

The usual non-answer is that this isn't happenning. It gives them a
cop out excuse not to think about it. In their world something like
that can never happen.

The don't like
people who are certain. I'm actually working on this. I want to find a
different form of evangelism that doesn't crap on others and get one crapped
on.

And Many applaud your efforts. The problem ISN'T that you are certain
in your beliefs... the problem stems from the dogma that you must
'spread the word' to everyone else.

If you simply lived your life as your see fit as a Christian, others
would be drawn to you... to your faith. You don't see Muslims or
Buddhists or Taoists going door to door or preaching on street
corners, yet Muslim is the fastest growing religion in the world, and
the other two are growing as well.

If evangelism would stop PUSHING, people would stop pushing back.

He can't tell the difference between the initial push and the
reaction.
In his mind they don't push.
They're bringing "the truth(tm)" to a hostile world that sets out to
ignore the obvious.
But worst of all when they're prevented from enforcing their religion
they pretend this prevents them from practising it. On people who have
no say in the matter because their religion says so.
Because in their world enforcing it is is part of their religion.
The concept of individual freedom means nothing to them. It's the
group freedom of robots that counts.

In fact, that's part of why I am doing this. I'm sick of watching people throw
Bible's at each other and threatening each other with eternal hellfile. It's,
for lack of a better word, *****.

I for one had noted that you have NEVER threatened anyone here with
eternal hellfire and appreciate that fact. Thank you.

James, Seattle

User: "Zaghadka"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	17 Dec 2004 01:27:13 AM

RainLover bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:23:18 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

jwk bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

logic and historical record are irrelevant to counter my arguments.

So you are being dissed on usenet. That hardly counts as persecution.
Where else, pray tell, are you under attack?

Let's try an experiment - we both go into crowded, public places, shout
out our beliefs/lack of beliefs, and see who gets hasseled.

Both of us, of course. People in our culture don't like beliefs.

Oh, they all have them. I find all beliefs to be beautiful. This is what I
mean. They love only themselves.

As I said, I'm trying to write a book on practical evangelism. These
discussions are helping me. I feel force is inappropriate. All you need do is
lead the horse to water and then stop worrying about it. Of course, it helps if
the horse knows it's water...
All a Christian must do is, through demonstration, show that real Christians
are benign and have nothing but love for others. IMO, there are so many False
Prophets out there that, if I didn't think Revelation was LSD induced, I might
believe we were in the End Times and start building a bunker like the Branch
Davidians.
Then reason kicks in, as well as a distaste for nihilism.

How would Christians feel if Bush happened to be Muslim, and the
Muslim Right were changing the Laws to reflect Mosaic Law? Would you
feel somewhat threatened? I should hope you would!

I feel threatened right now. I think Bush is a radical and I find it incredible
that the Christian Right is getting away with claiming he was elected on moral
values when it is quite clear he was elected on fear. Someone should be
challenging them publicly before their lies become the truth. I am in no such
position to do so, and would be discredited as a non-Christian anyway.
The first time Bush was appointed, not elected. I'm scared and for all the
right reasons. The Constitution: Gone, The Geneva Conventions: Gone, SALT:
Gone, a philosophy of non-agression: Gone. Where will it end? It will end in
death. History demonstrates that.
The Europeans think we're nuts because their society was leveled by WWII. Ours
was exalted. It's definitely time to leave the wartime economy as a viable
means of economic sustinence. Christ demands it.

The don't like
people who are certain. I'm actually working on this. I want to find a
different form of evangelism that doesn't crap on others and get one crapped
on.

And Many applaud your efforts. The problem ISN'T that you are certain
in your beliefs... the problem stems from the dogma that you must
'spread the word' to everyone else.

Do I sound like I'm spreading such words and ideas? I say this stuff to
Christians as well. I am but one man. If I ever finish my book, maybe it will
hit the best seller list. That will greatly enhance my impact on society. Right
now, I'm just some schmuck on Usenet continuing a dialogue with those who
believe differently so I can be *very sure* of what I believe.

If you simply lived your life as your see fit as a Christian, others
would be drawn to you... to your faith.

Practical evangelism. Yes. I am strong willed, but I don't think I'm being
overly agressive.

You don't see Muslims or
Buddhists or Taoists going door to door or preaching on street
corners,

Nor will you see me. Impractical evangelism.

yet Muslim is the fastest growing religion in the world, and
the other two are growing as well.

The Christian market is saturated. Growth is overrated. ;^)

If evangelism would stop PUSHING, people would stop pushing back.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Can I quote you?

In fact, that's part of why I am doing this. I'm sick of watching people throw
Bible's at each other and threatening each other with eternal hellfile. It's,
for lack of a better word, *****.

I for one had noted that you have NEVER threatened anyone here with
eternal hellfire and appreciate that fact. Thank you.

Thanks for noticing. Matthew 11:6. Christ said: Blessed are those who take no
offense at me. It's in Luke, too. You are blessed. I wish I could find a less
obtuse way to say that to an atheist.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.

User: "RainLover"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	17 Dec 2004 07:57:52 AM

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 01:27:13 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

RainLover bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:23:18 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

jwk bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

logic and historical record are irrelevant to counter my arguments.

So you are being dissed on usenet. That hardly counts as persecution.
Where else, pray tell, are you under attack?

Let's try an experiment - we both go into crowded, public places, shout
out our beliefs/lack of beliefs, and see who gets hasseled.

Both of us, of course. People in our culture don't like beliefs.

Oh, they all have them. I find all beliefs to be beautiful. This is what I
mean. They love only themselves.

To keep with your metaphor, the problem comes when every single
Christian one encounters grabs your reigns and pulls you over to the
same bucket of brackish water.... over and over again... and THEN
they wonder why the horse starts to get a tad perturbed by it.

All a Christian must do is, through demonstration, show that real Christians
are benign and have nothing but love for others. IMO, there are so many False
Prophets out there that, if I didn't think Revelation was LSD induced, I might
believe we were in the End Times and start building a bunker like the Branch
Davidians.

It's the RARE Christian who lives their life by demonstration and only
proselytize to those who ASK, very rare indeed, if not extinct all
together.

How would Christians feel if Bush happened to be Muslim, and the
Muslim Right were changing the Laws to reflect Mosaic Law? Would you
feel somewhat threatened? I should hope you would!

You're right on both accounts. It AMAZED me when Bush accused Kerry
of fear-mongering during a debate after Cheney had been running all
over the nation vividly describing a boogeyman.. er, terrorist setting
off a nuclear or biological weapon in one of our cities.... And the
really amazing part, no one called him on it.
And, btw, your fair and equal stance on the subject of Christianity as
all ready cost you your secret decoder ring in exchange for a one way
ticket to Hell.... ;-) Your viewpoints have no place in the current
Frenzy of "Christianity".

The first time Bush was appointed, not elected. I'm scared and for all the
right reasons. The Constitution: Gone, The Geneva Conventions: Gone, SALT:
Gone, a philosophy of non-agression: Gone. Where will it end? It will end in
death. History demonstrates that.

Bush honestly believes God speaks to him and he's carrying out HIS
will... Bush also believes that the 'end times' will begin in the
middle-east and feels it's his job to get things started. We have a
religious fanatic in charge, and it's scary how many people ignore
this fact.

The Europeans think we're nuts because their society was leveled by WWII. Ours
was exalted. It's definitely time to leave the wartime economy as a viable
means of economic sustinence. Christ demands it.

Good point... I believe Bush chose to become a "wartime president"
because he thought a good war would repeat the good economic times
that followed WWII.... he seems to have forgotten the HORRIBLE times
that followed Vietnam, which is ironic since his inner circle is made
up of the same people that were there after that "conflict".

The don't like
people who are certain. I'm actually working on this. I want to find a
different form of evangelism that doesn't crap on others and get one crapped
on.

And Many applaud your efforts. The problem ISN'T that you are certain
in your beliefs... the problem stems from the dogma that you must
'spread the word' to everyone else.

No. you do NOT sound like you're spreading 'the word'... It sounds
like your fishing for good book material, and I hope you all the best
in your endeavor! All I ask is a copy of the published work (signed
of course) and my own personal 'dedication' page. :-)

If you simply lived your life as your see fit as a Christian, others
would be drawn to you... to your faith.

Practical evangelism. Yes. I am strong willed, but I don't think I'm being
overly agressive.

No, you're not overly aggressive in your attempts to convert.
Strong-willed is fine.. actually, it's a REQUIREMENT to survive in
some of these newsgroups. hehe

You don't see Muslims or
Buddhists or Taoists going door to door or preaching on street
corners,

Nor will you see me. Impractical evangelism.

Too bad... you're the ONLY Christian I'd welcome into my home if you
came by preachin' the word. hehehe

yet Muslim is the fastest growing religion in the world, and
the other two are growing as well.

The Christian market is saturated. Growth is overrated. ;^)

Growth if overrated? If I didn't know better, I'd think you're
against unrestrained capitalism! I pegged you as a pinko commie from
the beginning!!! :-)

If evangelism would stop PUSHING, people would stop pushing back.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Can I quote you?

You can quote me, but you have to give the quote attribution....
"James Kelsey". Thanks for askin'!

In fact, that's part of why I am doing this. I'm sick of watching people throw
Bible's at each other and threatening each other with eternal hellfile. It's,
for lack of a better word, *****.

I for one had noted that you have NEVER threatened anyone here with
eternal hellfire and appreciate that fact. Thank you.

Thanks for noticing. Matthew 11:6. Christ said: Blessed are those who take no
offense at me. It's in Luke, too. You are blessed. I wish I could find a less
obtuse way to say that to an atheist.

Actually, when I hear "blessed" I always think more of the Pagan or
Wiccan "you are blessed" than the Christian sentiment... It just
reminds me that many people 'bless" others. As long as it's
heartfelt, I take it as it's meant. Thank you.
It's funny.... Christians always (usually) think of atheists as a
group of god-hating, Christian-hating, amoral, hedonists who don't
care about other people at all.
I know many atheists who are NONE of the above. Personally, I study
Eastern Philosophies and consider myself a Taoist. Other than my
morning bout in the newsgroups, I'm quite content, happy, tranquil,
meditative, and very respectful of all life (even Christians).
Don't get me wrong though... you can't beat a good chuck of cow on the
grill! (well, maybe a huge chunk of salmon...)
James, Seattle
.

User: "Zaghadka"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	17 Dec 2004 10:05:54 AM

RainLover bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

The faithful get carried away. Forgive them. Forgive me. The best thing you can
do is just say to someone who is thirsty, "Here, have some water. I do this in
the name of God." That's evangelism. Just be certain the person needs water in
the first place. It'd be awful if they melted. ;^)
This is called, at a more advanced level, giving testimony. You say, "Yes
Virgina, there is a God. I've experienced him." and you field any questions
that come up. If no one asks any questions, you leave, promptly.
This is what's so great about Usenet. If someone doesn't like what I'm saying,
they killfile me and never see me again. They can literally make me go away. If
someone challenges me to prove God's existence, I say I can't. If they say
that's ridiculous. I say okay, that's not my opinion, but fine. If they say
"neener neener" I say "ouch" and then I leave.
The thing that will not happen is I will not leave a dialogue unless I am
convinced the person is abusing me or ignoring me.
That's it. That's evangelism. Saying "There is a God" in alt.atheism is, to me,
the same thing as turning a light on in a darkened room. It brings the
possibility of a sense beyond one's five senses. That third eye of eastern
cultures.
I wake my daughter up for school every morning too, but I do so as gently as
possible.
You're my equal though, so I don't treat you like a nine-year-old unless I
don't recognize I'm doing it.
I hope I haven't offended you. If you think I've treated you like a
nine-year-old, I apologize.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.

User: "jwk"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	17 Dec 2004 07:40:06 PM

Zaghadka wrote:

jwk bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

logic and historical record are irrelevant to counter my

arguments.

So you are being dissed on usenet. That hardly counts as

persecution.

Where else, pray tell, are you under attack?

Let's try an experiment - we both go into crowded, public places,

shout

out our beliefs/lack of beliefs, and see who gets hasseled.

Both of us, of course.

If you believe that, you are deluded. Christians in our culture feel
free to harass, and threaten, and throw things at, and, yes, even beat,
atheists. Atheists, on the other hand, do not feel like it is their
privilege to do the same to Christians. Any claim you make to the
contrary is just spin.
jwk
.

User: "Attila"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	18 Dec 2004 05:01:11 AM

On 17 Dec 2004 17:40:06 -0800, "jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1103334006.274194.207390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:

Zaghadka wrote:

jwk bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

logic and historical record are irrelevant to counter my

arguments.

So you are being dissed on usenet. That hardly counts as

persecution.

Where else, pray tell, are you under attack?

Let's try an experiment - we both go into crowded, public places,

shout

out our beliefs/lack of beliefs, and see who gets hasseled.

Both of us, of course.

An example of christian tolerance:
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/9287375.htm
.

User: "Moose"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	15 Dec 2004 05:24:32 PM

jwk wrote:

Let's try an experiment - we both go into crowded, public places, shout
out our beliefs/lack of beliefs, and see who gets hasseled.

May the biggest lemming win!
.

User: "jwk"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	14 Dec 2004 08:20:17 AM

Zaghadka wrote:

jwk bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

Zaghadka wrote:

Ray Fischer bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot

flames, and

screamed...

George W. Bush ordered wars which have killed 100,000+ people.

Yup. And he does so in the name of God. My human opinion is that

is a "false

prophet" as indicated by his fruits. I will not follow him. God

will

sort it

out in the end.

Do we really have to wait for God to sort it out?

Probably not. We have to wait 4 years. If Armageddon comes before

that, and

Bush strikes me as a really good candidate to spark that sort of

thing, *then*

God will sort it out. I doubt Bush will pull off Armageddon though,

even if

it's his "secret" goal.

You speak of an
"end", wouldn't waiting for that be waiting too long? Is there
anything I can say to motivate decent Christians (like you) to move
against this guy yourselves, instead of waiting for God to do it?
We're dying here waiting.

jwk

I did move against him. I voted for Dean in the primaries. I voted

for Kerry in

the Presidential election.

I refuse to move against hordes of followers that I consider my

brothers. So, I

trust in God. Add to this that I suffer from some degree of

cowardice, and

perhaps you'll understand. If the end comes, I know what will happen.

I've been

there. It ain't so bad. ;^)

God, if you find him, helps you keep a sense of perspective.

--
Zag

Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage

...bumper sticker

User: "--sexkitten--"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	13 Dec 2004 07:56:01 AM

Zaghadka wrote:

Ray Fischer bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

George W. Bush ordered wars which have killed 100,000+ people.

Yup. And he does so in the name of God. My human opinion is that he is a "false
prophet" as indicated by his fruits. I will not follow him. God will sort it
out in the end. I try to have faith, but it's hard when so many of my brethern
work to put such a man back in power, and in the name of God at that. There's a
Jewish commandment against taking God's name in vain.

The Bible can be used to mislead as easily as it can lead. I still think it's
the best source out there, mostly because of the very unique things Jesus says.
"Love thine enemy." What other faith challenges you to do that?

In the case of international terrorists, it is a tall task indeed. In the case
of what seems to be a murderous, oathbreaking President that does not uphold
the Constitution. Well, wow. I do not presume divine judgment in such matters,
but my human instincts are screaming like a five alarm fire.

Please do not mock my faith. If you disagree, that's fine, but the sarcastic
comments you make hurt. We shouldn't be attacking each other. If I am
misinterpreting, I apologize.

I am beginning to have a great deal of respect for you and your views,
Zag, and that's not a tribute I give many Christians. You seem to have
your head screwed on straight, and a lot more common sense and tolerance
than most "christians" out there.

--
Zag

Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage

...bumper sticker

--
--sexkitten--Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much
life. Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something.
-Henry David Thoreau
.

User: "William T. Goat"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	11 Dec 2004 08:56:25 PM

Zaghadka wrote:

William T. Goat bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot

flames,

and screamed...

Zaghadka wrote:

Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot

flames,

and

screamed...

Can anyone think of anything more useless or futile than arguing

about

what some religious book says or does not say?

I think it's vital. It's the fundamental duty of those who wish to

understand

what the hell God was trying to say in the first place.

I would imagine that if God played an active part in one's life, one
would not need to refer to a book to learn about what He says.

I'm not sure what you mean by "an active part." God seems to allow me

free

will, so he does not actively guide me in what I should do on a day

to day

basis. I just amble about and do my best and mostly *trip* over God

when God

sees fit. Sometimes it takes me years to realize it's happened.

That's not a relationship.

I refer to books to learn about what He and others have said (note:

past

tense). That is one of my guides. What is in the Bible speaks to me

and speaks

to others. Debating/arguing/ talking about what is in it, IMHO, helps

those

participating find God. Bible study is, without a doubt in my mind,

good for

the soul.

It didn't do the Pharisees much good, did it?
I saw a documentary about John Lennon, in which an obsessed fan shows
up at his house and talks to him about his personal life. Lennon
actually had to explain to him that, no matter how well Lennon's lyrics
described the fan's life, that doesn't mean he knows the fan
personally. And you could see the fan getting dejected and awkwardly
silent.
It's the stalker mentality. You have a favorite writer, or artist, or
movie star, whose ideas resonate with yours so well that you convince
yourself that you have a relationship. You do everything you can to
finally meet him, and when you do, you hang around him, you talk to him
about his personal life and yours, you get too close for his comfort,
until he finally has to say, "Get away from me! I don't know you!"
Sounds an awful lot like Matthew 7:21-23, doesn't it? Perhaps Jesus was
warning against mistaking Biblical knowledge for a personal
relationship.

It's pure hubris to believe that one doesn't need the words and
thoughts of others. Divine inspiration is extremely rare and, from

what I've

experienced and read, never a constant thing.

But without divine inspiration, you can't be sure that the Bible has
anything to do with God's words and thoughts.
<snip>

That's the long story. I'm interested to know about your faith. You

seem to

have a clear idea about your relationship with God, too.

Certainly. God hates me. He has hated every human being, ever since
Adam and Eve gained a moral conscience. God never wanted them to gain a
moral conscience, because He wants all humans to obey His evil will.
Specifically, I know that God wanted me, personally, to kill a close
friend of mine. Because I refused to kill, He has damned me to Hell,
just like He has damned all the world's stillborn babies.
At least, that's what the Bible taught me. If I ever allow myself to
fully believe that the Bible is true, I will become a murderer.
And if you think I'm joking, I can provide specific Bible verses to
back all of this up.
Knowing this, do you really want me to keep studying the Bible?
--Billy
.

User: "Zaghadka"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	12 Dec 2004 04:09:12 AM

William T. Goat bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...

Specifically, I know that God wanted me, personally, to kill a close
friend of mine. Because I refused to kill, He has damned me to Hell,
just like He has damned all the world's stillborn babies.

At least, that's what the Bible taught me. If I ever allow myself to
fully believe that the Bible is true, I will become a murderer.

And if you think I'm joking, I can provide specific Bible verses to
back all of this up.

Knowing this, do you really want me to keep studying the Bible?

Yes, I do. I think you're making an assumption. I am not a Bible literalist.
There's huge passages in the Bible that say, "Throw rocks at people if they do
this. Throw rocks at people if they do that." Jesus came and said don't throw
rocks because you're only throwing rocks at yourselves. (at least that's my
paraphrase)
I think everyone on the planet would be stoned dead 10 times over if we
followed the Bible literally. I once pointed to a verse about stoning to death
those who speak ill of their parents and proceeded to call my Dad a
"ratfucker," quite earnestly, and then dared a literalist in my study group to
"go get some rocks." It wasn't fair and it was mean, but I wasn't in a very
good mood that day. It proved my point. There's some crazy stuff in the Bible
and you have to be discriminating.
There is so much of value though that I can't justify throwing the baby out
with the bathwater. I don't think you should either.
I don't think God wanted you personally to kill your friend, but you don't tell
me why you thought that. Did you read something? Did you hear something, see
something? What? If God asked me to personally kill my close friend, I'd be
more likely to assume it wasn't God.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.

User: "William T. Goat"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	12 Dec 2004 06:11:27 PM

Zaghadka wrote:

William T. Goat bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot

flames,

and screamed...

Yes, I do. I think you're making an assumption. I am not a Bible

literalist.
Then you will burn in Hell.

There's huge passages in the Bible that say, "Throw rocks at people

if they do

this. Throw rocks at people if they do that." Jesus came and said

don't throw

rocks because you're only throwing rocks at yourselves. (at least

that's my

paraphrase)

He also said you have to hate your family in order to follow Him.

I think everyone on the planet would be stoned dead 10 times over if

followed the Bible literally. I once pointed to a verse about stoning

to death

those who speak ill of their parents and proceeded to call my Dad a
"ratfucker," quite earnestly, and then dared a literalist in my study

group to

"go get some rocks." It wasn't fair and it was mean, but I wasn't in

a very

good mood that day. It proved my point. There's some crazy stuff in

the Bible

and you have to be discriminating.

No. You must not be discriminating. God forbids it. "Trust in the Lord
with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding."
Proverbs 3:5. You can't call the Bible the source of your morals if
you're just going to pick and choose which bits already seem moral to
you. The Bible also warns against obeying your conscience. "There is a
way that seems right to a man; that way leads to death" Proverbs 16:25.
We must only do the things we think are wrong.
If you disagree, then you disagree with the Word of God. And I must ask
myself whom to believe: God, or you?
Of course, if the Bible is not the Word of God, the dilemma goes away.

There is so much of value though that I can't justify throwing the

baby out

with the bathwater. I don't think you should either.

I don't think God wanted you personally to kill your friend, but you

don't tell

me why you thought that. Did you read something? Did you hear

something, see

something? What? If God asked me to personally kill my close friend,

I'd be

more likely to assume it wasn't God.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18.
--Billy
.

User: "Zaghadka"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	13 Dec 2004 04:38:36 AM

William T. Goat bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...

There's huge passages in the Bible that say, "Throw rocks at people

if they do

this. Throw rocks at people if they do that." Jesus came and said

don't throw

rocks because you're only throwing rocks at yourselves. (at least

that's my

paraphrase)

He also said you have to hate your family in order to follow Him.

I think everyone on the planet would be stoned dead 10 times over if

followed the Bible literally. I once pointed to a verse about stoning

to death

those who speak ill of their parents and proceeded to call my Dad a
"ratfucker," quite earnestly, and then dared a literalist in my study

group to

"go get some rocks." It wasn't fair and it was mean, but I wasn't in

a very

good mood that day. It proved my point. There's some crazy stuff in

the Bible

and you have to be discriminating.

No. You must not be discriminating. God forbids it. "Trust in the Lord
with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding."

I do trust in the Lord. I do not trust implicitly a BOOK written by MEN. The
Bible to me is a map, a way to find the Lord. That doesn't contradict the
passage you just quoted. Indeed, passages of the Bible contradict each other
with disturbing frequency, especially if you contrast the old covenant with the
new. I enjoy watching literalists do mental backflips trying to line up
everything in the Bible. Then I become sad, because I realize that maybe they
have faith in a *book* instead of *God*.

Proverbs 3:5. You can't call the Bible the source of your morals if
you're just going to pick and choose which bits already seem moral to
you. The Bible also warns against obeying your conscience. "There is a
way that seems right to a man; that way leads to death" Proverbs 16:25.
We must only do the things we think are wrong.

You're quoting Proverbs. Christ came from Mary and said that the time for the
Old Covenant is over. That's what a "New" Covenant is. The Torah is the same
place I got my challenge to be stoned. If the literalists are right, we're all
stoned 10 times over and God wants us to blow up the entire world and come back
to the mothership. There are those who believe this and have, in fact,
destroyed themselves or attempted to destroy others. I cannot say that Jim
Jones was wrong, in a divine sense, but I do deem him a fool. I will wait for
*GOD* to bring an end to this show. I surrender to Him.
There are three places faith in God leads to: destroy yourself because the
flesh is wrong and God wants you to, destroy everyone else because you are God,
or try to live in communion and love with each other. I choose to live in the
middle ground because faith dictates that I do. I have faith in the light, and
not the darkness. I am in the middle, God is the beginning and end.
God is the alpha and the omega. God unequivocably determined that Christ was
God made flesh, so I will not destroy everyone else, because I am not God. A
human being who was God already happened. It's not me. I will not destroy
myself. It is my most basic instinct to live, and God gave me that. I choose
the middle path. I must through the fact of existence. I am.

If you disagree, then you disagree with the Word of God. And I must ask
myself whom to believe: God, or you?

Of course, if the Bible is not the Word of God, the dilemma goes away.

Right. Don't worship a book. Use the book to find the truth. God *inspires* his
authors, but we are human vessels and we ***** it up. Constantly. I wonder how
others can read the teachings of Christ and think otherwise. If those authors
presented the complete and unmangled word of God, then they were God. Each and
every one of them. Christ is the one, and only, God made flesh. Once Christ
came, it became clear that they were wise *men*, not God. The time of the Old
Covenant is over. ;^)
I don't pick and choose my Biblical truths alone. I converse with others and
sometimes take the leap to trust in others. We're back to where this thread
started. Bible study is good for the soul.
Would you please stop playing "poke the Christian" and treat me as an equal?
IMHO, you're not having an earnest discussion.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.

User: "Attila"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	13 Dec 2004 06:02:50 AM

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 04:38:36 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<j7qqr09p551g03j85m32g20bh1887c9lg8@4ax.com> wrote:

William T. Goat bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...

There's huge passages in the Bible that say, "Throw rocks at people

if they do

this. Throw rocks at people if they do that." Jesus came and said

don't throw

rocks because you're only throwing rocks at yourselves. (at least

that's my

paraphrase)

He also said you have to hate your family in order to follow Him.

I think everyone on the planet would be stoned dead 10 times over if

followed the Bible literally. I once pointed to a verse about stoning

to death

those who speak ill of their parents and proceeded to call my Dad a
"ratfucker," quite earnestly, and then dared a literalist in my study

group to

"go get some rocks." It wasn't fair and it was mean, but I wasn't in

a very

good mood that day. It proved my point. There's some crazy stuff in

the Bible

and you have to be discriminating.

No. You must not be discriminating. God forbids it. "Trust in the Lord
with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding."

I do trust in the Lord.

Why? You can't even prove any such entity exists.

I do not trust implicitly a BOOK written by MEN. The
Bible to me is a map, a way to find the Lord. That doesn't contradict the
passage you just quoted. Indeed, passages of the Bible contradict each other
with disturbing frequency, especially if you contrast the old covenant with the
new. I enjoy watching literalists do mental backflips trying to line up
everything in the Bible. Then I become sad, because I realize that maybe they
have faith in a *book* instead of *God*.

Especially since there is no proof any god exists or that any book was
written by or involved any such entity.

You're quoting Proverbs. Christ came from Mary and said that the time for the
Old Covenant is over. That's what a "New" Covenant is. The Torah is the same
place I got my challenge to be stoned. If the literalists are right, we're all
stoned 10 times over and God wants us to blow up the entire world and come back
to the mothership. There are those who believe this and have, in fact,
destroyed themselves or attempted to destroy others. I cannot say that Jim
Jones was wrong, in a divine sense, but I do deem him a fool. I will wait for
*GOD* to bring an end to this show. I surrender to Him.

There are three places faith in God leads to: destroy yourself because the
flesh is wrong and God wants you to, destroy everyone else because you are God,
or try to live in communion and love with each other. I choose to live in the
middle ground because faith dictates that I do. I have faith in the light, and
not the darkness. I am in the middle, God is the beginning and end.

God is the alpha and the omega. God unequivocably determined that Christ was
God made flesh, so I will not destroy everyone else, because I am not God. A
human being who was God already happened. It's not me. I will not destroy
myself. It is my most basic instinct to live, and God gave me that. I choose
the middle path. I must through the fact of existence. I am.

You spent some time explaining how you do not trust religious books
yet you are now talking about what one of them says. Why is that?

If you disagree, then you disagree with the Word of God. And I must ask
myself whom to believe: God, or you?

Of course, if the Bible is not the Word of God, the dilemma goes away.

Right. Don't worship a book. Use the book to find the truth. God *inspires* his
authors,

Your proof of this is what?

but we are human vessels and we ***** it up. Constantly. I wonder how
others can read the teachings of Christ and think otherwise. If those authors
presented the complete and unmangled word of God, then they were God. Each and
every one of them. Christ is the one, and only, God made flesh. Once Christ
came, it became clear that they were wise *men*, not God. The time of the Old
Covenant is over. ;^)

I don't pick and choose my Biblical truths alone. I converse with others and
sometimes take the leap to trust in others. We're back to where this thread
started. Bible study is good for the soul.

Prove a soul exists.

Would you please stop playing "poke the Christian" and treat me as an equal?
IMHO, you're not having an earnest discussion.

Perhaps if you expect an intelligent discussion you should provide
intelligent information which can be supported and not speculation
with no provable basis.
.

User: "Zaghadka"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	13 Dec 2004 03:18:24 PM

Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

You spent some time explaining how you do not trust religious books
yet you are now talking about what one of them says. Why is that?

Perhaps you misunderstood. I trust that the Bible contains wisdom. I'm pretty
darned sure that it also contains some really awful stuff, stuff Bible
literalists conveniently ignore (men sit with their wives in the church, for
instance). I exercise my human judgement regarding the Bible. I quote the
passages that have relevance to me and my experiences. It's the only sure frame
of reference I've got.
IMHO, it is far from satisfactory, and that, IMHO, is because the inspiration
of God was transferred through human flesh. Things tend to get mangled that
way. To me, the most important words in the Bible are the witness accounts of
the words of Christ. I hope the authors got them right. Matthew is my favorite
Gospel.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	13 Dec 2004 10:22:02 PM

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:18:24 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:

It's called "salad bar Christianity" - pick the parts you like.

IMHO, it is far from satisfactory, and that, IMHO, is because the inspiration
of God was transferred through human flesh.

A pretty lame way for an omniscient, omnipotent god to go about doing
things.

To me, the most important words in the Bible are the witness accounts of
the words of Christ. I hope the authors got them right.

Especially the parts about what he said when there was no one around
to hear it?
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.

User: "Zaghadka"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	14 Dec 2004 06:51:01 AM

Al Klein bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

IMHO, it is far from satisfactory, and that, IMHO, is because the inspiration
of God was transferred through human flesh.

A pretty lame way for an omniscient, omnipotent god to go about doing
things.

If you think the gift of Free Will is lame, so be it. God will not tell us what
to do, He will only support us.

To me, the most important words in the Bible are the witness accounts of
the words of Christ. I hope the authors got them right.

Especially the parts about what he said when there was no one around
to hear it?

Exactly! What about the so-called Gnostic gospels? What about all the heresies
the RC Church conveniently rooted out for us? Those aren't in the Bible. What
about the stuff Christ said in the desert when he was alone. I find your
statement very insightful.
IMHO, "salad bar Christianity" is better than "no Christianity."
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	14 Dec 2004 06:33:42 PM

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:51:01 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

IMHO, it is far from satisfactory, and that, IMHO, is because the inspiration
of God was transferred through human flesh.

A pretty lame way for an omniscient, omnipotent god to go about doing
things.

If you think the gift of Free Will is lame, so be it.

I was talking about an omniscient creator of the universe - your
religion's claim about its god. That precludes free will.

God will not tell us what to do, He will only support us.

So if I want to be able to survive, unclothed, in outer space, he'll
"support me"? No, assuming that your claims about your god are
correct, he puts all kinds of limits on what we can and can't do.

To me, the most important words in the Bible are the witness accounts of
the words of Christ. I hope the authors got them right.

Especially the parts about what he said when there was no one around
to hear it?

Exactly!

You must be the kind who believes that your god is so great that he
can reward or punish us even if he doesn't exist.

What about the so-called Gnostic gospels? What about all the heresies
the RC Church conveniently rooted out for us? Those aren't in the Bible. What
about the stuff Christ said in the desert when he was alone.

They couldn't have been written down by anyone, because no one could
have heard him say them.

IMHO, "salad bar Christianity" is better than "no Christianity."

IYO a religion in which you make up whatever you want is better than
no religion? It figures.
---
CellPhonesEtc at optonline dot net
.

User: "Zaghadka"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	15 Dec 2004 04:43:19 AM

Al Klein bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:51:01 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

IMHO, it is far from satisfactory, and that, IMHO, is because the inspiration
of God was transferred through human flesh.

A pretty lame way for an omniscient, omnipotent god to go about doing
things.

If you think the gift of Free Will is lame, so be it.

I was talking about an omniscient creator of the universe - your
religion's claim about its god. That precludes free will.

God will not tell us what to do, He will only support us.

So if I want to be able to survive, unclothed, in outer space, he'll
"support me"? No, assuming that your claims about your god are
correct, he puts all kinds of limits on what we can and can't do.

Yes. He will bring you succor when you are quite throughly dead. He brings the
support you need, not the support you want.

To me, the most important words in the Bible are the witness accounts of
the words of Christ. I hope the authors got them right.

Especially the parts about what he said when there was no one around
to hear it?

Exactly!

You must be the kind who believes that your god is so great that he
can reward or punish us even if he doesn't exist.

My God is not a God of vengeance. That is the God of the Old Testament. Just
because a bunch of misguided people say AIDS is God's wrath against the
homosexuals doesn't make it so. You make many assumptions about me.

They couldn't have been written down by anyone, because no one could
have heard him say them.

That was my point. I regard such verses with skepticism.

IMHO, "salad bar Christianity" is better than "no Christianity."

IYO a religion in which you make up whatever you want is better than
no religion? It figures.

What do you do? Don't we all make it up as we go? I don't have faith in a
religion, I choose my religion. I have faith in God, God found me. That is all
I am saying. All the other fundamentalist crap going on is just that, IMHO.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	16 Dec 2004 07:30:40 PM

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:43:19 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:51:01 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:

God will not tell us what to do, He will only support us.

So if I want to be able to survive, unclothed, in outer space, he'll
"support me"? No, assuming that your claims about your god are
correct, he puts all kinds of limits on what we can and can't do.

Yes. He will bring you succor when you are quite throughly dead. He brings the
support you need, not the support you want.

You're assuming this.

You must be the kind who believes that your god is so great that he
can reward or punish us even if he doesn't exist.

My God is not a God of vengeance. That is the God of the Old Testament.

Stop playing the bagpipes.

IMHO, "salad bar Christianity" is better than "no Christianity."

IYO a religion in which you make up whatever you want is better than
no religion? It figures.

What do you do? Don't we all make it up as we go?

Claims of reality? No. You're projecting.

I don't have faith in a
religion, I choose my religion. I have faith in God, God found me.

That's you making things up again.
---
CellPhonesEtc at optonline dot net
.

User: "Attila"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	13 Dec 2004 04:41:49 PM

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:18:24 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<821sr0hk6bsgl6m1cc9u5vd9pk0rl8gdj6@4ax.com> wrote:

Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

You spent some time explaining how you do not trust religious books
yet you are now talking about what one of them says. Why is that?

Perhaps you misunderstood. I trust that the Bible contains wisdom.

So does The Fellowship Of THe Rings. So what? Every book has wisdom
especially an encyclopedia.

I'm pretty
darned sure that it also contains some really awful stuff, stuff Bible
literalists conveniently ignore (men sit with their wives in the church, for
instance). I exercise my human judgement regarding the Bible. I quote the
passages that have relevance to me and my experiences. It's the only sure frame
of reference I've got.

My experience has shown me that someone can find something in any
religious book that will both support and oppose just about anything
that can be conceived. Such ambiguity is where they thrive.

IMHO, it is far from satisfactory, and that, IMHO, is because the inspiration
of God was transferred through human flesh.

I am still waiting for someone to prove some god exists. Until that
happens isn't it a waste of time to talk about it?

Things tend to get mangled that
way. To me, the most important words in the Bible are the witness accounts of
the words of Christ.

Prove any such person ever existed.

I hope the authors got them right. Matthew is my favorite
Gospel.

Don't worry about it. There is no way to know is there? But since
such a huge amount of religious writing is obviously flawed it is all
suspect isn't it?
.

User: "Zaghadka"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	14 Dec 2004 06:48:18 AM

Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

Things tend to get mangled that
way. To me, the most important words in the Bible are the witness accounts of
the words of Christ.

Prove any such person ever existed.

It's in a book. It's in the first book ever printed. It's in a book that makes
the New York Times best seller list look like a flea market. But, guess what, I
can't.
Now everything outside of our own lifespans is irrelevent. You keep narrowing
the scope of reality.
The *only* proof I have that Napoleon existed is books and monuments. Does that
make it useless to talk about Napoleon?
You have just said, "Yes."
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I believe that.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	14 Dec 2004 07:31:26 AM

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:48:18 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

Things tend to get mangled that
way. To me, the most important words in the Bible are the witness accounts of
the words of Christ.

What "witness accounts"?

Prove any such person ever existed.

It's in a book. It's in the first book ever printed. It's in a book that makes
the New York Times best seller list look like a flea market. But, guess what, I
can't.

How does that prove he existed, morn?

Now everything outside of our own lifespans is irrelevent. You keep narrowing
the scope of reality.

Only in your deluded fantasies.

The *only* proof I have that Napoleon existed is books and monuments. Does that
make it useless to talk about Napoleon?

The dishonest bait'n'switch from the extraordinary for which there is
zero evidence, to the ordinary which is conclusion drawn from
historical evidence.
The last gasp of the cornered theist who lapses into pseudo-solipsism"
you can't prove anything therefore an unevidenced thing you can't
prove is as valid as an evidenced conclusion that you can't prove
either.
Do they honestly expect this transparent cop out to convince anybody,
or even to satisfy their burden of putting up when they don't shut up?

You have just said, "Yes."

Where did he do that? Clue: he didn't, you're lying.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I believe that.

Apply it to yourself.
.

User: "Zaghadka"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	15 Dec 2004 04:10:17 AM

Christopher A. Lee bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:48:18 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

Things tend to get mangled that
way. To me, the most important words in the Bible are the witness accounts of
the words of Christ.

What "witness accounts"?

Prove any such person ever existed.

It's in a book. It's in the first book ever printed. It's in a book that makes
the New York Times best seller list look like a flea market. But, guess what, I
can't.

How does that prove he existed, morn?

Now everything outside of our own lifespans is irrelevent. You keep narrowing
the scope of reality.

Only in your deluded fantasies.

The *only* proof I have that Napoleon existed is books and monuments. Does that
make it useless to talk about Napoleon?

The dishonest bait'n'switch from the extraordinary for which there is

You believe me a deceiver.

zero evidence, to the ordinary which is conclusion drawn from
historical evidence.

What zero evidence? The Bible isn't an historical document? Nobody in that book
ever existed? Is that what you're saying? The only difference between
historical evidence about Napoleon and historical evidence about Jesus is
timeframe. Historical evidence is a matter of record. Introduce me to someone
who was witness to the Napoleonic wars if that's not good enough.

The last gasp of the cornered theist who lapses into pseudo-solipsism"
you can't prove anything therefore an unevidenced thing you can't
prove is as valid as an evidenced conclusion that you can't prove
either.

Again you mention solipsism. My point is that the secular *leads* to solipsism.
If you are not a solipsist, then you engage in acts of faith.

Do they honestly expect this transparent cop out to convince anybody,
or even to satisfy their burden of putting up when they don't shut up?

The only way I will "cop out" here is by agreeing with you.

You have just said, "Yes."

Where did he do that? Clue: he didn't, you're lying.

By logical extension he has.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I believe that.

Apply it to yourself.

There isn't a historical event that could contradict what I'm trying to say.
You cannot prove through historical record that there is no God. I think you're
making a lot of assumptions about me.
--
Zag
Guns cause crime
like flies cause garbage
...bumper sticker
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Who Is More Moral- Athiest Liberals Or Conservative Christians?	15 Dec 2004 06:49:11 AM

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:10:17 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Christopher A. Lee bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:48:18 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Attila bolted into alt.world, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...

Things tend to get mangled that
way. To me, the most important words in the Bible are the witness accounts of
the words of Christ.

What "witness accounts"?

Prove any such person ever existed.

It's in a book. It's in the first book ever printed. It's in a book that makes
the New York Times best seller list look like a flea market. But, guess what, I
can't.

How does that prove he existed, morn?

Now everything outside of our own lifespans is irrelevent. You keep narrowing
the scope of reality.

Only in your deluded fantasies.

The *only* proof I have that Napoleon existed is books and monuments. Does that
make it useless to talk about Napoleon?

The dishonest bait'n'switch from the extraordinary for which there is

You believe me a deceiver.

I merely observe your intellectual dishonesty and transparent copouts.

zero evidence, to the ordinary which is conclusion drawn from
historical evidence.

What zero evidence?

Which word are you pretending not to understand?

The Bible isn't an historical document? Nobody in that book

It is a mixture of myth and legend with a modicum of history thrown
in. Full of imopossibilietes and things than never happened.
Just the same as hundreds of similar books from all the other
religions.
Do you really believe that the angel Moroni gave the golden tablets to
Joseph Smith? After all, the Book of Mormon says so, and that is just