Scientific evidence proves that pre-historic man had some sort of
belief in supernatural deities:
"A growing number of anthropologists and archeo-mythologists argue
that the prevailing ideology of belief in prehistoric Europe and much
of the world was based on the worship of a single earth goddess, who
was assumed to be the fount of all life and who radiated harmony among
all living things." - Al Gore (Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the
Human Spirit)
"Much of the evidence for the existence of this primitive religion
comes from the many thousands of artifacts uncovered in ceremonial
sites. These sites are so widespread that they seem to confirm the
notion that a goddess religion was ubiquitous throughout much of the
world until the antecedents of today's religions - most of which still
have a distinctly masculine orientation - swept out of India and the
Near East, almost obliterating belief in the goddess. The last vestige
of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity" - Al Gore
(Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the Human Spirit)
Yet around 600 B.C. (before the birth of Jesus) and in the name of
"science" men began to employ themselves idiotically in the futile
attempt to remove the notion of the existance of supernatural beings
from the fabric of their current culture...
"The early Greek, or Hellenic, culture marked a different approach to
science. The Ionian natural philosophers removed the gods from the
personal roles they had played in the cosmologies of Babylonia and
Egypt and sought to order the world according to philosophical
principles. Thales of Miletus (6th cent. B.C.) was one of the earliest
of these and contributed to astronomy, geometry, and cosmology. He was
followed by Anaximander, who extended Thales' ideas and proposed that
the universe is composed of four basic elements, i.e., earth, air,
fire, and water; this theory was also taught by Empedocles (5th cent.
B.C.) in Sicily."
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Science&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&linktext=science
Enter Charles Darwin whom many of you think fathered the theory of
evolution. In fact, Darwin pilfered his notions from other scientists,
some who had come before him (such as his grandfather for one):
"Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was one of the leading
intellectuals of eighteenth century England, a man with a remarkable
array of interests and pursuits. Erasmus Darwin was a respected
physician, a well known poet, philosopher, botanist, and naturalist.
As a naturalist, he formulated one of the first formal theories on
evolution in Zoonomia, or, The Laws of Organic Life (1794-1796). He
also presented his evolutionary ideas in verse, in particular in the
posthumously published poem The Temple of Nature."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/Edarwin.html
For your reading convenience, I dug up that poem. Here it is:
"Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing."
- Erasmus Darwin. (The Temple of Nature, 1802)
And here, Darwins grandfather clearly (and falsely, in true false
scientific fashion) suggests that all living things "evolved" from a
common ancestor. And I admit being startled myself upon discovering
this tidbit of history since I'd previously blamed Darwin (Charles)
for single handedly corrupting science and everything good about
Biology (which is my secular profession). Professors will not tell you
this stuff. Anyhow here it is. This quote from Charles Darwins
grandfather proves that Darwin himself does not deserve all the
credit (blame) for coming up with the theory (lie) of human evolution
a.k.a... the lie concerning the "common ancestor" theory:
"Would it be too bold to imagine that, in the great length of time
since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the
commencement of the history of mankind would it be too bold to imagine
that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament,
which the great First Cause endued with animality, with the power of
acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by
irritations, sensations, volitions and associations, and thus
possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent
activity, and of delivering down these improvements by generation to
its posterity, world without end!" Erasmus Darwin (Zoönomia, 1794)
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Erasmus+Darwin
Did you see what he said? Independent organisms which need no God
atall.
So from grandpaw to grandson was the torch to passed in order to
attempt to remove supernatural concepts and possibilities from the
minds of men... all under the disguise of "science":
The lie began to spread (as a tool of the devil) under the name of
"science":
"Ernst Haeckel, much like Herbert Spencer, was always quotable, even
when wrong. Although best known for the famous statement "ontogeny
recapitulates phylogeny", he also coined many words commonly used by
biologists today, such as phylum, phylogeny, and ecology."
"Although trained as a physician, Haeckel abandoned his practice in
1859 after reading Darwin's Origin of Species. Always suspicious of
teleological and mystical explanation, Haeckel used the Origin as
ammunition both to attack entrenched religious dogma and to build his
own unique world view."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/haeckel.html
On my exact birthday 95 years ago Charles Darwins "Origin of the
Species" was actually published as "On the Origin of Species by Means
of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the
Struggle for Life". So here am I, 95 years later finding myself trying
to correct al these lies as if it were my divine duty.
"First published on 24 November 1859, The Origin of Species (full
title On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) by British
naturalist Charles Darwin is one of the pivotal works in scientific
history, and arguably the pre-eminent work in biology. In it, Darwin
makes "one long argument" for his theory that "groups" of organisms,
(which we now call populations) rather than individual organisms,
gradually evolve through the process of natural selection—a mechanism
effectively introduced to the public at large by the book. The work
presents detailed scientific evidence he had accumulated both on the
Voyage of the Beagle in the 1830s and since his return, painstakingly
laying out his theory and refuting the doctrine of "Created kinds"
underlying the theories of Creation biology which were then widely
accepted."
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/The+Origin+of+Species
Of course. Darwin fell to (pseudo) "science" and became an
X-christian. Formerly, he was a Bible quoting Christian....
"During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst
on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being
heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves
orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some
point of morality." - Charles Darwin (The Autobiography of Charles
Darwin)
However, the devil has finally conceded that man will never easily
relinquish his belief in the supernatural and will never surrender his
God given rights of "faith".
And thus "science", in this modern day and time reverts to mans
earlier primordial superstitions of goddess worship in a last ditch
effort to deceive him:
"In science, a Gaia theory is a class of scientific models of the
biosphere in which life fosters and maintains suitable conditions for
itself by affecting Earth's environment. The first such theory was
created by the English atmospheric scientist James Lovelock in 1969.
He hypothesized that the living matter of the planet functioned like a
single organism and named this self-regulating living system after the
Greek goddess Gaia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_%28science%29
Lovelock was no insignificant scientists seeing that he was employed
at NASA's Jet Propulslsion Lab:
"A lifelong inventor, some of his inventions were adopted by NASA in
their program of planetary exploration. It was while working for NASA
that Lovelock developed the Gaia Hypothesis."
"James Lovelock is the author of approximately 200 scientific papers,
distributed almost equally among topics in Medicine, Biology,
Instrument Science and Geophysiology. He has filed more than 50
patents, mostly for detectors for use in chemical analysis. One of
these, the electron capture detector, was important in the development
of environmental awareness."
"For me, the personal revelation of Gaia came quite suddenly - like a
flash of enlightenment. I was in a small room on the top floor of a
building at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. It
was the autumn of 1965 ... and I was talking with a colleague, Dian
Hitchcock, about a paper we were preparing ... It was at that moment
that I glimpsed Gaia."
http://www.gaianet.fsbusiness.co.uk/gaiatheory.html
However, this is no great surprise seeing that the Bible perfectly
explains that "evolution" is not the problem, but that "devolution" is
the culprit of the latter days of civilization as we know it. The
"devolution" of mankind is simply summarized as being a state of being
of men by which they have somehow (by democic influence) lost "faith".
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some
shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of devils" (1 Timothy 4:1)
comments welcome, as always
Jd A.D. 2006
Anno Domini" is Latin for "in the year of Our Lord", referring to Our
Lord Jesus Christ. That is, "AD 1996" literally means "in the 1996'th
year since the birth of the Christ." Now not all the world is
Christian, so it makes no sense for a Jew, a Moslem, a Hindu, a Witch,
a Druid, or an atheist to refer to the date as being in the year of
"their Lord" when they don't follow him. So "CE" is a more considerate
way of labeling dates in the Gregorian calendar without rubbing
non-Christian's noses in the fact that so much of the world is using a
calendar based on the alleged birth-year of the man we Christians
believe to be the Messiah.
http://www.radix.net/~dglenn/defs/ce.html
.
|
|
| User: "Anno Domini" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
10 Mar 2006 07:44:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Anno Domini wrote:
"Of all the differences between the races of man, the colour of the
skin is the most conspicuous and one of the best marked." Charles
Darwin (Descent of Man Chapter VII - On the Races of Man)
Conspicuous meaning visible.
Idjut.
What the hell????? An injun takin' up for Darwin and "survival of the
fittest"?
Amazing.
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
11 Mar 2006 02:29:07 AM |
|
|
Anno Domini wrote:
"Of all the differences between the races of man, the colour of the
skin is the most conspicuous and one of the best marked." Charles
Darwin (Descent of Man Chapter VII - On the Races of Man)
Conspicuous meaning visible.
Idjut.
What the hell????? An injun takin' up for Darwin and "survival of the
fittest"?
Since we're outbreeding you, yes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
13 Mar 2006 04:39:25 PM |
|
|
Anno Domini wrote:
And please show where Darwin meant race as you mean it, and where
Darwin was a racist.
"Of all the differences between the races of man, the colour of the
skin is the most conspicuous and one of the best marked." Charles
Darwin (Descent of Man Chapter VII - On the Races of Man)
"Conspicuous" is another word for "obvious". Can you name
a difference between yourself and a black guy more obvious
than his darker skin?
Idjut.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
07 Mar 2006 12:04:56 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 05:06:39 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:
Wally Anglesea™ <<wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 01:24:07 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <gc3d02d7kvt9nmgjk0egmp5vrujdmvbui2@4ax.com> Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:
I do. But they hate it. However, you and I simply cannot secumb to
lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our nature being born of the
Spirit.
HA! "cannot secumb to lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our
nature being born of the Spirit" thunders JDay ... right before
he scuttles off to set the X-No-Archive flag, to make sure
no one will hold him to his words. Any of his words.
There ought to be a special word for that kind of irony.
-- cary
Lukewarmedness has nothing to do with fence sitting, Judas Iscariot.
You're sins, like Darwin's are open and manifest to all whether I have
X-archive or not.
Darwin turned away from Jesus. What folks don't know is that the real
title of his work known as "Origin of the Species" (by those of the
monkey cult) is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life" - Charles Darwin (November 24 1859)
You racist traitor you.
And please show where Darwin meant race as you mean it, and where
Darwin was a racist.
"Of all the differences between the races of man, the colour of the
skin is the most conspicuous and one of the best marked." Charles
Darwin (Descent of Man Chapter VII - On the Races of Man)
Idjut.
Nowhere does it say or prove Darwin was a racist, you moron.
That is merely a cretinist lie.
All cretinists lie. All.
--
Maj. General, Fanatic Legions.
Commander of Southern Hemisphere Forces.
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
07 Mar 2006 12:23:49 AM |
|
|
Wally Anglesea? <<wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au>, the
dirty loafer and delicate hole-puncher who likes fiendish tongue washing
with gophers, and whose partner is a pavement-pounder with a delicate
heart-shaped box, wrote in <5e8q02hqaicdl0toihsqssd9efb99atl0i@4ax.com>:
All cretinists lie.
Epiminedes is turning in his grave.
--
Satisifed Customer: "Thank you, Kadaitcha Man. I appreciate it. It works just great!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "asgard" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
07 Mar 2006 06:45:09 AM |
|
|
"Kadaitcha Man" <*****-you.ya.*****@kiss-my-big-black-*****.com> wrote in
message news:svrk4k$r03$g@measly-turrets.net...
Wally Anglesea? <<wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au>, the
dirty loafer and delicate hole-puncher who likes fiendish tongue washing
with gophers, and whose partner is a pavement-pounder with a delicate
heart-shaped box, wrote in <5e8q02hqaicdl0toihsqssd9efb99atl0i@4ax.com>:
All cretinists lie.
Epiminedes is turning in his grave.
Would have thought you'd be more the Heraclitus type of guy.
You know the bloke - He drowned in *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
07 Mar 2006 06:55:10 AM |
|
|
asgard <asgard@mybizz.com>, the dribbling loafer and quiescent suckster
who likes wretched quim-sticking with titmice, and whose partner is a
flat-backer with a dripping giney, wrote in
<440d7f24$0$3289$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com>:
"Kadaitcha Man" <*****-you.ya.*****@kiss-my-big-black-*****.com> wrote in
message news:svrk4k$r03$g@measly-turrets.net...
Wally Anglesea? <<wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au>, the
dirty loafer and delicate hole-puncher who likes fiendish tongue
washing with gophers, and whose partner is a pavement-pounder with a
delicate heart-shaped box, wrote in
<5e8q02hqaicdl0toihsqssd9efb99atl0i@4ax.com>:
All cretinists lie.
Epiminedes is turning in his grave.
Would have thought
Liar.
--
Satisifed Customer: "Thank you, Kadaitcha Man. I appreciate it. It works just great!"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anno Domini" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
09 Mar 2006 08:46:46 PM |
|
|
Wally Anglesea™ <<wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 05:06:39 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:
Wally Anglesea™ <<wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 01:24:07 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <gc3d02d7kvt9nmgjk0egmp5vrujdmvbui2@4ax.com> Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:
I do. But they hate it. However, you and I simply cannot secumb to
lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our nature being born of the
Spirit.
HA! "cannot secumb to lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our
nature being born of the Spirit" thunders JDay ... right before
he scuttles off to set the X-No-Archive flag, to make sure
no one will hold him to his words. Any of his words.
There ought to be a special word for that kind of irony.
-- cary
Lukewarmedness has nothing to do with fence sitting, Judas Iscariot.
You're sins, like Darwin's are open and manifest to all whether I have
X-archive or not.
Darwin turned away from Jesus. What folks don't know is that the real
title of his work known as "Origin of the Species" (by those of the
monkey cult) is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life" - Charles Darwin (November 24 1859)
You racist traitor you.
And please show where Darwin meant race as you mean it, and where
Darwin was a racist.
"Of all the differences between the races of man, the colour of the
skin is the most conspicuous and one of the best marked." Charles
Darwin (Descent of Man Chapter VII - On the Races of Man)
Idjut.
Nowhere does it say or prove Darwin was a racist, you moron.
That is merely a cretinist lie.
All cretinists lie. All.
Really? Is that what you think? Hmmm... well that's OK with me. I'm
all for free thought as well as free speech.
But tell me, do you think a little white lie here or there is more of
a sin than the act of sodomy?
Jd A.D 2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
09 Mar 2006 11:09:30 PM |
|
|
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
But tell me, do you think a little white lie here or there is more of
a sin than the act of sodomy?
The Bible says twice in one paragraph that it is, since it left the
latter off a list of abominations.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anno Domini" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
10 Mar 2006 11:13:49 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
But tell me, do you think a little white lie here or there is more of
a sin than the act of sodomy?
The Bible says twice in one paragraph that it is, since it left the
latter off a list of abominations.
lojbab
I know what the Bible says, but what I want to know is what do you
think.
Do you personally think that Sodomy is worse than lying?
Jd, Anno Domini 2006
"Anno Salutis (often translated from Latin as in the year of
salvation) is a dating style used up until the eighteenth century,
which like Anno Domini dates years from the birth of Christ. It can be
explained in the context of Christian belief, where the birth of Jesus
saved mankind from eternal damnation. It is often used in a more
elaborate form such as Anno Nostrae Salutis (in the year of our
salvation), Anno Salutis Humanae (in the year of human well-being),
Anno Reparatae Salutis (in the year of accomplished salvation)."
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=anno+domini&gwp=13
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
10 Mar 2006 03:27:22 PM |
|
|
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
But tell me, do you think a little white lie here or there is more of
a sin than the act of sodomy?
The Bible says twice in one paragraph that it is, since it left the
latter off a list of abominations.
lojbab
I know what the Bible says, but what I want to know is what do you
think.
Do you personally think that Sodomy is worse than lying?
I personally think that judgement is up to God, and I won't classify
generic sins as better or worse than other sins, not claiming the
Godhood.
I opine that YOUR lies, showing nothing but hatred and desire to
mislead, serve Satan by making your brand of Christianity a
laughingstock (and indirectly harming all other forms associated with
the name "Christian"). I don't perceive any such harm resulting from
sodomy, unless it is tied to the deceit and hypocrisy of condemning
sodomy while indulging in it themselves, in which case it falls back
to being a form of lying that is the real sin.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anno Domini" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
10 Mar 2006 07:44:47 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
But tell me, do you think a little white lie here or there is more of
a sin than the act of sodomy?
The Bible says twice in one paragraph that it is, since it left the
latter off a list of abominations.
lojbab
I know what the Bible says, but what I want to know is what do you
think.
Do you personally think that Sodomy is worse than lying?
I personally think that judgement is up to God, and I won't classify
generic sins as better or worse than other sins, not claiming the
Godhood.
I opine that YOUR lies, showing nothing but hatred and desire to
mislead, serve Satan by making your brand of Christianity a
laughingstock (and indirectly harming all other forms associated with
the name "Christian"). I don't perceive any such harm resulting from
sodomy, unless it is tied to the deceit and hypocrisy of condemning
sodomy while indulging in it themselves, in which case it falls back
to being a form of lying that is the real sin.
lojbab
This is a great step forward Bob. You have in the above confessed your
belief in a supernatural being called "God" and in one called "the
devil".
But lookie here. I'm willing to bet that none of these
pseudo-scientific wannabees attack you for espousing your
non-scientific views in supernatural deities.
Why?
Simply because they never have in all the years I'bve been here.
So what does that tell you?
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
10 Mar 2006 09:48:30 PM |
|
|
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
This is a great step forward Bob. You have in the above confessed your
belief in a supernatural being called "God" and in one called "the
devil".
But lookie here. I'm willing to bet that none of these
pseudo-scientific wannabees attack you for espousing your
non-scientific views in supernatural deities.
Why?
Simply because they never have in all the years I'bve been here.
So what does that tell you?
That I am rational and do not offend them, and you aren't and do.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anno Domini" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
12 Mar 2006 11:24:58 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
This is a great step forward Bob. You have in the above confessed your
belief in a supernatural being called "God" and in one called "the
devil".
But lookie here. I'm willing to bet that none of these
pseudo-scientific wannabees attack you for espousing your
non-scientific views in supernatural deities.
Why?
Simply because they never have in all the years I'bve been here.
So what does that tell you?
That I am rational and do not offend them, and you aren't and do.
lojbab
And so they killed Jesus because he didn't offend them?
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
12 Mar 2006 01:38:03 PM |
|
|
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
That I am rational and do not offend them, and you aren't and do.
And so they killed Jesus because he didn't offend them?
Probably not. The exact mindset of the Jewish leaders, and of Pilate
for that matter, can't be determined, since the only reports we have
were written by an unsympathetic "opposition". Most likely it was a
complex political calculation. But it could simply be that they
considered His antics in the temple to have been a "terrorist crime".
(Indeed, that might have been the only reason He was charged -
destruction of property and interfering with the "business" that
supported the Jewish leadership at what was probably the peak of the
tourist season during Passover week - otherwise He likely would have
been arrested sooner if it was merely a matter of "offending" since
the Bible has numerous reports of His conversations with people of the
orthodox hierarchy, none of which sound threatening in either way).
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anno Domini" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
12 Mar 2006 05:04:37 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
That I am rational and do not offend them, and you aren't and do.
And so they killed Jesus because he didn't offend them?
Probably not. The exact mindset of the Jewish leaders, and of Pilate
for that matter, can't be determined, since the only reports we have
were written by an unsympathetic "opposition". Most likely it was a
complex political calculation. But it could simply be that they
considered His antics in the temple to have been a "terrorist crime".
(Indeed, that might have been the only reason He was charged -
destruction of property and interfering with the "business" that
supported the Jewish leadership at what was probably the peak of the
tourist season during Passover week - otherwise He likely would have
been arrested sooner if it was merely a matter of "offending" since
the Bible has numerous reports of His conversations with people of the
orthodox hierarchy, none of which sound threatening in either way).
lojbab
Are you saying that being offensive is or isn't a bad thing? Just
want some clarification here.
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
12 Mar 2006 11:16:54 PM |
|
|
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
That I am rational and do not offend them, and you aren't and do.
And so they killed Jesus because he didn't offend them?
Probably not. The exact mindset of the Jewish leaders, and of Pilate
for that matter, can't be determined, since the only reports we have
were written by an unsympathetic "opposition". Most likely it was a
complex political calculation. But it could simply be that they
considered His antics in the temple to have been a "terrorist crime".
(Indeed, that might have been the only reason He was charged -
destruction of property and interfering with the "business" that
supported the Jewish leadership at what was probably the peak of the
tourist season during Passover week - otherwise He likely would have
been arrested sooner if it was merely a matter of "offending" since
the Bible has numerous reports of His conversations with people of the
orthodox hierarchy, none of which sound threatening in either way).
lojbab
Are you saying that being offensive is or isn't a bad thing? Just
want some clarification here.
If you don't know whether being offensive is good or bad, try wearing
eau de Pepe Le Peu into a crowded movie theater and you'll soon find
out.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anno Domini" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
15 Mar 2006 09:28:16 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
That I am rational and do not offend them, and you aren't and do.
And so they killed Jesus because he didn't offend them?
Probably not. The exact mindset of the Jewish leaders, and of Pilate
for that matter, can't be determined, since the only reports we have
were written by an unsympathetic "opposition". Most likely it was a
complex political calculation. But it could simply be that they
considered His antics in the temple to have been a "terrorist crime".
(Indeed, that might have been the only reason He was charged -
destruction of property and interfering with the "business" that
supported the Jewish leadership at what was probably the peak of the
tourist season during Passover week - otherwise He likely would have
been arrested sooner if it was merely a matter of "offending" since
the Bible has numerous reports of His conversations with people of the
orthodox hierarchy, none of which sound threatening in either way).
lojbab
Are you saying that being offensive is or isn't a bad thing? Just
want some clarification here.
If you don't know whether being offensive is good or bad, try wearing
eau de Pepe Le Peu into a crowded movie theater and you'll soon find
out.
lojbab
Know I'm sure you don't read before you reply. I was asking for
clarification WRT your beliefs.
Then again maybe you do read but are so cowardly when it comes to
sharing your personal views that you pee in your pants at the very
thought.
Idjut,
Jd
"Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus
Christ"), commonly shortened to Anno Domini ("In the Year of the
Lord"), abbreviated as AD or A.D., is the designation used to number
years in the Christian Era, conventionally used with the Julian and
Gregorian calendars. It defines an epoch based on the
traditionally-reckoned year of the birth of Jesus. BC (Before Christ)
is now usually used to denote years before Anno Domini years in
English."
"This Christian era is currently dominant all around the world in both
commercial and scientific use. Presently, it is the common,
international standard, recognised by international institutions such
as the United Nations and the Universal Postal Union."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini
Jd, Anno Domini 2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
15 Mar 2006 11:00:23 PM |
|
|
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
That I am rational and do not offend them, and you aren't and do.
And so they killed Jesus because he didn't offend them?
Probably not. The exact mindset of the Jewish leaders, and of Pilate
for that matter, can't be determined, since the only reports we have
were written by an unsympathetic "opposition". Most likely it was a
complex political calculation. But it could simply be that they
considered His antics in the temple to have been a "terrorist crime".
(Indeed, that might have been the only reason He was charged -
destruction of property and interfering with the "business" that
supported the Jewish leadership at what was probably the peak of the
tourist season during Passover week - otherwise He likely would have
been arrested sooner if it was merely a matter of "offending" since
the Bible has numerous reports of His conversations with people of the
orthodox hierarchy, none of which sound threatening in either way).
lojbab
Are you saying that being offensive is or isn't a bad thing? Just
want some clarification here.
If you don't know whether being offensive is good or bad, try wearing
eau de Pepe Le Peu into a crowded movie theater and you'll soon find
out.
lojbab
Know I'm sure you don't read before you reply. I was asking for
clarification WRT your beliefs.
Then again maybe you do read but are so cowardly when it comes to
sharing your personal views that you pee in your pants at the very
thought.
Personal views you want - personal views you get.
I am *not* saying that being offensive is or isn't a bad thing.
Neither one. It is a subjective and situational evaluation.
Being offensive is an *offensive* thing, and thus has its natural
consequences. A masochist who relishes such consequences might thing
it a good thing. Most would think it a bad thing. Those who are
offended tend almost universally to consider it a bad thing, though
there are a few who go about looking to take offense at things, who
might perversely think it good to be offended.
I find offending people to be generally non-productive, so I tend to
avoid it unless I hold so little respect for the person I may be
offending that I don't much care. On the other hand, I find lying to
be offensive to myself, so in most cases I would rather offend someone
than lie to them.
Your practice of intentionally offending someone and lying to them at
the same time, I find so contemptible that it makes you an especial
figure of ridicule - a nincompoop, though you have a long way to go to
match THE nincompoop in your idiocy.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anno Domini" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
16 Mar 2006 12:29:34 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
That I am rational and do not offend them, and you aren't and do.
And so they killed Jesus because he didn't offend them?
Probably not. The exact mindset of the Jewish leaders, and of Pilate
for that matter, can't be determined, since the only reports we have
were written by an unsympathetic "opposition". Most likely it was a
complex political calculation. But it could simply be that they
considered His antics in the temple to have been a "terrorist crime".
(Indeed, that might have been the only reason He was charged -
destruction of property and interfering with the "business" that
supported the Jewish leadership at what was probably the peak of the
tourist season during Passover week - otherwise He likely would have
been arrested sooner if it was merely a matter of "offending" since
the Bible has numerous reports of His conversations with people of the
orthodox hierarchy, none of which sound threatening in either way).
lojbab
Are you saying that being offensive is or isn't a bad thing? Just
want some clarification here.
If you don't know whether being offensive is good or bad, try wearing
eau de Pepe Le Peu into a crowded movie theater and you'll soon find
out.
lojbab
Know I'm sure you don't read before you reply. I was asking for
clarification WRT your beliefs.
Then again maybe you do read but are so cowardly when it comes to
sharing your personal views that you pee in your pants at the very
thought.
Personal views you want - personal views you get.
I am *not* saying that being offensive is or isn't a bad thing.
Neither one. It is a subjective and situational evaluation.
Being offensive is an *offensive* thing, and thus has its natural
consequences. A masochist who relishes such consequences might thing
it a good thing. Most would think it a bad thing. Those who are
offended tend almost universally to consider it a bad thing, though
there are a few who go about looking to take offense at things, who
might perversely think it good to be offended.
I find offending people to be generally non-productive, so I tend to
avoid it unless I hold so little respect for the person I may be
offending that I don't much care. On the other hand, I find lying to
be offensive to myself, so in most cases I would rather offend someone
than lie to them.
Your practice of intentionally offending someone and lying to them at
the same time, I find so contemptible that it makes you an especial
figure of ridicule - a nincompoop, though you have a long way to go to
match THE nincompoop in your idiocy.
lojbab
Thanks. Now that you've put me up there with Jesus, I have no more
questions at this time.
Oops. Except for this one. Does this sound "intentional"?:
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh
of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." - Jesus
(John 8:44)
Jd, A.D. 2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
16 Mar 2006 02:09:21 AM |
|
|
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
I am *not* saying that being offensive is or isn't a bad thing.
Neither one. It is a subjective and situational evaluation.
Being offensive is an *offensive* thing, and thus has its natural
consequences. A masochist who relishes such consequences might thing
it a good thing. Most would think it a bad thing. Those who are
offended tend almost universally to consider it a bad thing, though
there are a few who go about looking to take offense at things, who
might perversely think it good to be offended.
I find offending people to be generally non-productive, so I tend to
avoid it unless I hold so little respect for the person I may be
offending that I don't much care. On the other hand, I find lying to
be offensive to myself, so in most cases I would rather offend someone
than lie to them.
Your practice of intentionally offending someone and lying to them at
the same time, I find so contemptible that it makes you an especial
figure of ridicule - a nincompoop, though you have a long way to go to
match THE nincompoop in your idiocy.
Thanks. Now that you've put me up there with Jesus,
Not hardly.There is no reason to believe that Jesus was a liar,
whereas you are a self-admitted intentional liar.
Oops. Except for this one. Does this sound "intentional"?:
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh
of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." - Jesus
(John 8:44)
Sounds like He was talking to you, and I am sure it was not a lie.
Whether it caused offense cannot be ascertained.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anno Domini" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
19 Mar 2006 08:54:36 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
I am *not* saying that being offensive is or isn't a bad thing.
Neither one. It is a subjective and situational evaluation.
Being offensive is an *offensive* thing, and thus has its natural
consequences. A masochist who relishes such consequences might thing
it a good thing. Most would think it a bad thing. Those who are
offended tend almost universally to consider it a bad thing, though
there are a few who go about looking to take offense at things, who
might perversely think it good to be offended.
I find offending people to be generally non-productive, so I tend to
avoid it unless I hold so little respect for the person I may be
offending that I don't much care. On the other hand, I find lying to
be offensive to myself, so in most cases I would rather offend someone
than lie to them.
Your practice of intentionally offending someone and lying to them at
the same time, I find so contemptible that it makes you an especial
figure of ridicule - a nincompoop, though you have a long way to go to
match THE nincompoop in your idiocy.
Thanks. Now that you've put me up there with Jesus,
Not hardly.There is no reason to believe that Jesus was a liar,
whereas you are a self-admitted intentional liar.
Oops. Except for this one. Does this sound "intentional"?:
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh
of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." - Jesus
(John 8:44)
Sounds like He was talking to you, and I am sure it was not a lie.
Whether it caused offense cannot be ascertained.
lojbab
Liar. They hung him on a cross and thought he would remain "dead".
People were certainly offended by Jesus.
Jesus quoting the prophet:
"Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 'This people
draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their
lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men'." (Matthew 15:7-9)
Here is who was offended on that occaision....
Matthew 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, "Knowest
thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?"
You must agree with me and admit that Jesus did indeed "offend" folks
on occaision.
All you have to do is say "yeah, I gree with you", but you can't since
you don't believe the Bible.
In fact you believe only in scientific absoulutes as opposed to moral
absoulutes which means you have things exactly backwards and cannot
comprehend why folks believe Jesus actually walked on water in
defiance of natural law.
Nor can you comprehend the reason why everyone considers tommorrow as
being March the 20th, 2006 years since the birth of Jesus.
What I can't comprehend is why you think folks would actually believe
your version of evolution whereby you think Jesus was an advanced ape
who rose from the dead.
Here is your chance. Here you are on the internet in view of the
entire population of the earth who happens to have acess to a
computer... so go for it and explain these things to them and thereby
save them from me.
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
19 Mar 2006 10:17:09 PM |
|
|
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
I am *not* saying that being offensive is or isn't a bad thing.
Neither one. It is a subjective and situational evaluation.
Being offensive is an *offensive* thing, and thus has its natural
consequences. A masochist who relishes such consequences might thing
it a good thing. Most would think it a bad thing. Those who are
offended tend almost universally to consider it a bad thing, though
there are a few who go about looking to take offense at things, who
might perversely think it good to be offended.
I find offending people to be generally non-productive, so I tend to
avoid it unless I hold so little respect for the person I may be
offending that I don't much care. On the other hand, I find lying to
be offensive to myself, so in most cases I would rather offend someone
than lie to them.
Your practice of intentionally offending someone and lying to them at
the same time, I find so contemptible that it makes you an especial
figure of ridicule - a nincompoop, though you have a long way to go to
match THE nincompoop in your idiocy.
Thanks. Now that you've put me up there with Jesus,
Not hardly.There is no reason to believe that Jesus was a liar,
whereas you are a self-admitted intentional liar.
Oops. Except for this one. Does this sound "intentional"?:
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh
of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." - Jesus
(John 8:44)
Sounds like He was talking to you, and I am sure it was not a lie.
Whether it caused offense cannot be ascertained.
Liar. They hung him on a cross and thought he would remain "dead".
That is responsive to nothing I said above.
It is YOU who are the proven liar on this forum, and since a proven
liar cannot be a prophet, you are no prophet.
People were certainly offended by Jesus.
I am sure that some were. But we have no reports FROM such people,
only hearsay reports ABOUT such people by those who were their
enemies.
Jesus quoting the prophet:
"Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 'This people
draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their
lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men'." (Matthew 15:7-9)
That does not claim that anyone was offended.
Here is who was offended on that occaision....
Matthew 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, "Knowest
thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?"
You must agree with me and admit that Jesus did indeed "offend" folks
on occaision.
The disciples said so. The Pharisees recorded no such objection.
There are NO negative statements about Jesus of Nazareth recorded
about him during His life.
All you have to do is say "yeah, I gree with you", but you can't since
you don't believe the Bible.
The Bible reports one side of the story, and doesn't do all that well
at that.
In fact you believe only in scientific absoulutes as opposed to moral
absoulutes which means you have things exactly backwards and cannot
comprehend why folks believe Jesus actually walked on water in
defiance of natural law.
There are moral absolutes, but most human beings do not accept them,
or do not accept them as absolutes, or do not agree as to what they
mean when applied to real life.
One thing for certain is that your interpretation is wrong, since you
are of the devil.
Nor can you comprehend the reason why everyone considers tommorrow as
being March the 20th, 2006 years since the birth of Jesus.
"Everyone" does not consider that to be the case. In fact, I suspect
that few people who are educated consider that to be the case, since
educated people know that if the Biblical account is true, Jesus
Christ could not have been born 2006 years ago, and thus the people
who did the calculations for Pope Gregory in the 1500s were WRONG.
What I can't comprehend is why you think folks would actually believe
your version of evolution whereby you think Jesus was an advanced ape
who rose from the dead.
My "version of evolution" says nothing specific about Jesus Christ at
all.
Here is your chance. Here you are on the internet in view of the
entire population of the earth who happens to have acess to a
computer... so go for it and explain these things to them and thereby
save them from me.
Jesus Christ has already saved them from you and your Satan-serving
ilk, if they have faith in Him.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anno Domini" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
20 Mar 2006 08:17:06 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
I am *not* saying that being offensive is or isn't a bad thing.
Neither one. It is a subjective and situational evaluation.
Being offensive is an *offensive* thing, and thus has its natural
consequences. A masochist who relishes such consequences might thing
it a good thing. Most would think it a bad thing. Those who are
offended tend almost universally to consider it a bad thing, though
there are a few who go about looking to take offense at things, who
might perversely think it good to be offended.
I find offending people to be generally non-productive, so I tend to
avoid it unless I hold so little respect for the person I may be
offending that I don't much care. On the other hand, I find lying to
be offensive to myself, so in most cases I would rather offend someone
than lie to them.
Your practice of intentionally offending someone and lying to them at
the same time, I find so contemptible that it makes you an especial
figure of ridicule - a nincompoop, though you have a long way to go to
match THE nincompoop in your idiocy.
Thanks. Now that you've put me up there with Jesus,
Not hardly.There is no reason to believe that Jesus was a liar,
whereas you are a self-admitted intentional liar.
Oops. Except for this one. Does this sound "intentional"?:
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh
of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." - Jesus
(John 8:44)
Sounds like He was talking to you, and I am sure it was not a lie.
Whether it caused offense cannot be ascertained.
Liar. They hung him on a cross and thought he would remain "dead".
That is responsive to nothing I said above.
That is because only an idjut would even try to find my name in the
Bible whereby Jesus was talking to me, as you said in the above.
It is YOU who are the proven liar on this forum, and since a proven
liar cannot be a prophet, you are no prophet.
Of course you would say that since I quote the Bible which you think
is full of lies, as demonstrated in our dialog where you stated that
the virgin Mary was descended from apes.
People were certainly offended by Jesus.
I am sure that some were. But we have no reports FROM such people,
only hearsay reports ABOUT such people by those who were their
enemies.
Idjut. The Holy Bible is not "hearsay".
Jesus quoting the prophet:
"Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 'This people
draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their
lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men'." (Matthew 15:7-9)
That does not claim that anyone was offended.
Read on, oh mighty deceiver...
Here is who was offended on that occaision....
Matthew 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, "Knowest
thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?"
See? Why don't you read before you reply? You are a pre-mature
ejaculation waiting to happen. Furthermore, you are one step away from
becoming a full-fledged X-christian like Cary.
I abhor lukewarm soon-to-be secular humanists who once were Christians
(like you).
You must agree with me and admit that Jesus did indeed "offend" folks
on occaision.
The disciples said so. The Pharisees recorded no such objection.
There are NO negative statements about Jesus of Nazareth recorded
about him during His life.
So in your un-humble view, who had Jesus nailed to the cross and why?
All you have to do is say "yeah, I gree with you", but you can't since
you don't believe the Bible.
The Bible reports one side of the story, and doesn't do all that well
at that.
Good. And thanks. Now you've confirmed for all to see how you depend
more on Google than the Holy Bible. And that's ok. But how do you hope
to convince anyone anywhere that I'm not a prophet by using Google?
"Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his
prophets, so shall ye prosper". (2Chronicles 20:20)
Jd, Anno Domini 2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
20 Mar 2006 10:14:01 PM |
|
|
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Sounds like He was talking to you, and I am sure it was not a lie.
Whether it caused offense cannot be ascertained.
Liar. They hung him on a cross and thought he would remain "dead".
That is responsive to nothing I said above.
That is because only an idjut would even try to find my name in the
Bible
What does your name have to do with it. He used the 2nd person
pronoun "you". And you are an obvious referent, since you are a liar
and a hypocrite.
It is YOU who are the proven liar on this forum, and since a proven
liar cannot be a prophet, you are no prophet.
Of course you would say that since I quote the Bible which you think
is full of lies,
No, I say that because you admitted it, along with the fact that you
continually repost stuff that has been proven false.
People were certainly offended by Jesus.
I am sure that some were. But we have no reports FROM such people,
only hearsay reports ABOUT such people by those who were their
enemies.
Idjut. The Holy Bible is not "hearsay".
Actually it is. And the quote in the Bible you referred to is 3rd
degree hearsay. Supposedly offended people said they were offended to
some disciples. Disciples said it as reported in the Bible, Matt
15:12. The witness to the apostles saying it several decades later
told whoever wrote the gospel.
You must agree with me and admit that Jesus did indeed "offend" folks
on occaision.
The disciples said so. The Pharisees recorded no such objection.
There are NO negative statements about Jesus of Nazareth recorded
about him during His life.
So in your un-humble view, who had Jesus nailed to the cross and why?
Pilate ordered it as reported in the Bible. The reason why is not
stated.
All you have to do is say "yeah, I gree with you", but you can't since
you don't believe the Bible.
The Bible reports one side of the story, and doesn't do all that well
at that.
Good. And thanks. Now you've confirmed for all to see how you depend
more on Google than the Holy Bible.
I depend on as many sources as possible.
And that's ok. But how do you hope
to convince anyone anywhere that I'm not a prophet by using Google?
I don't need Google. You are a proven liar. Therefore you cannot be
a prophet.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anno Domini" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
23 Mar 2006 07:42:31 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Idjut. The Holy Bible is not "hearsay".
Actually it is.
No further questions.
Jd A.D. 2006
Anno Domini" is Latin for "in the year of Our Lord", referring to Our
Lord Jesus Christ. That is, "AD 1996" literally means "in the 1996'th
year since the birth of the Christ." Now not all the world is
Christian, so it makes no sense for a Jew, a Moslem, a Hindu, a Witch,
a Druid, or an atheist to refer to the date as being in the year of
"their Lord" when they don't follow him. So "CE" is a more considerate
way of labeling dates in the Gregorian calendar without rubbing
non-Christian's noses in the fact that so much of the world is using a
calendar based on the alleged birth-year of the man we Christians
believe to be the Messiah.
http://www.radix.net/~dglenn/defs/ce.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
23 Mar 2006 11:32:58 PM |
|
|
"Anno Domini" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:vlq622pig4fb7074ceocu6thh5upa7s4ig@4ax.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Idjut. The Holy Bible is not "hearsay".
Actually it is.
No further questions.
Good. I'm glad we were able to clear that up for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anno Domini" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
24 Mar 2006 08:55:16 PM |
|
|
Geoff wrote:
"Anno Domini" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:vlq622pig4fb7074ceocu6thh5upa7s4ig@4ax.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
Idjut. The Holy Bible is not "hearsay".
Actually it is.
No further questions.
Good. I'm glad we were able to clear that up for you.
Another "hearetic"?.
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
20 Mar 2006 10:22:20 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 02:54:36 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
I am *not* saying that being offensive is or isn't a bad thing.
Neither one. It is a subjective and situational evaluation.
Being offensive is an *offensive* thing, and thus has its natural
consequences. A masochist who relishes such consequences might thing
it a good thing. Most would think it a bad thing. Those who are
offended tend almost universally to consider it a bad thing, though
there are a few who go about looking to take offense at things, who
might perversely think it good to be offended.
I find offending people to be generally non-productive, so I tend to
avoid it unless I hold so little respect for the person I may be
offending that I don't much care. On the other hand, I find lying to
be offensive to myself, so in most cases I would rather offend someone
than lie to them.
Your practice of intentionally offending someone and lying to them at
the same time, I find so contemptible that it makes you an especial
figure of ridicule - a nincompoop, though you have a long way to go to
match THE nincompoop in your idiocy.
Thanks. Now that you've put me up there with Jesus,
Not hardly.There is no reason to believe that Jesus was a liar,
whereas you are a self-admitted intentional liar.
Oops. Except for this one. Does this sound "intentional"?:
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh
of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." - Jesus
(John 8:44)
Sounds like He was talking to you, and I am sure it was not a lie.
Whether it caused offense cannot be ascertained.
lojbab
Liar. They hung him on a cross and thought he would remain "dead".
People were certainly offended by Jesus.
Jesus quoting the prophet:
"Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 'This people
draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their
lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men'." (Matthew 15:7-9)
Here is who was offended on that occaision....
Matthew 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, "Knowest
thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?"
You must agree with me and admit that Jesus did indeed "offend" folks
on occaision.
All you have to do is say "yeah, I gree with you", but you can't since
you don't believe the Bible.
In fact you believe only in scientific absoulutes as opposed to moral
absoulutes which means you have things exactly backwards and cannot
comprehend why folks believe Jesus actually walked on water in
defiance of natural law.
Nor can you comprehend the reason why everyone considers tommorrow as
being March the 20th, 2006 years since the birth of Jesus.
What I can't comprehend is why you think folks would actually believe
your version of evolution whereby you think Jesus was an advanced ape
who rose from the dead.
I don't think Jesus existed, much less rose from the dead. However
if the Jesus myths, are based on a real man, then he was a primate, as
are apes. I believe that Jesus, superman, captain marvel and the lone
ranger are all fictional characters.
Asses, donkeys or burros are equines, but not horses.
Here is your chance. Here you are on the internet in view of the
entire population of the earth who happens to have acess to a
computer... so go for it and explain these things to them and thereby
save them from me.
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. |
10 Mar 2006 11:41:00 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:48:30 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:
This is a great step forward Bob. You have in the above confessed your
belief in a supernatural being called "God" and in one called "the
devil".
But lookie here. I'm willing to bet that none of these
pseudo-scientific wannabees attack you for espousing your
non-scientific views in supernatural deities.
Why?
Simply because they never have in all the years I'bve been here.
So what does that tell you?
That I am rational and do not offend them, and you aren't and do.
There is nothing wrong with believing in a deity, IMHO. Believing in a
deity and understanding evolution and a multi billion year old
universe are not mutually exclusive.
--
Maj. General, Fanatic Legions.
Commander of Southern Hemisphere Forces.
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
China to attack Taipei in 2006?
End of the worl 2006
I predict the holocaust for sandniggers in 2006 !
2006 PREDICTIONS
March 2006
TOTAL WAR 2006
Art Bell 2006 Prediction Show This Weekend!
Re: 2006 = Liberals/A.C.L.U.'s WORST YEAR EVER!
| 2006 DRAGON RED ALERT and Such
WORLD WAR III NEWS, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8th, 2006, AD
Scientific Astrology 2006 - 2600 - March Log
Re: VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, February 2006
World War III NEWS, Friday, March 10th, 2006 AD........
world war III news, saturday, march 18th, 2006 AD...............The fifth horseman
World War III NEWS, Monday, April 3rd, 2006 AD.....
|
|
|
