Catholics & Catholicism » Roman Catholic Belief

Atheism and Parents

admin — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

OB wrote: > michaelashouse wrote: > > It’s NOT about our egos, it’s about god/spirit/potential/ > > choose your own word. > I’ve already chosen mine. It’s "tortilla".

How novel. – Michaela

Response:

OB wrote: > michaelashouse wrote: >>It’s NOT about our egos, it’s about god/spirit/potential/ >>choose your own word. > I’ve already chosen mine. It’s "tortilla".

Die happy

admin — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Are you really free?

Response:

"Daniel Urtiz" wrote in message

news:22425-41FABDE7-620@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net… > Are you really free?

free to do what Daniel? most things you can do if you really want too. you may get in trouble for some of the things but one is free to make desicions for themselves. you should obey God’s laws but one does not have too. though i try not to break them. and i am a firm believer in thou shalt not kill. i would never kill anyone. only God has the right to take life in my opinion. but what did you mean Daniel? sorry Daniel i have wandering thoughts sometimes. later anita

Response:

Anita, You can get too literal about the Ten Commandments. I do not believe killing is always wrong, but that might be more Roman Catholic than it is Jewish. It might sometimes be called an "indulgence", if it serves God’s end. When you kill, you can also die, but I’m not as afraid to die as I used to be. I’ve matured quite a bit since John touched my hand. Daniel Urtiz

Response:

"Daniel Urtiz" wrote in message

news:22426-41FAC92A-192@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net… > Anita, > You can get too literal about the Ten Commandments. I do not believe > killing is always wrong, but that might be more Roman Catholic than it > is Jewish. It might sometimes be called an "indulgence", if it serves > God’s end. > When you kill, you can also die, but I’m not as afraid to die as I used > to be. I’ve matured quite a bit since John touched my hand. > Daniel Urtiz

Daniel, i aint really afraid to die either, but i would prefer not to do it at this time. i personally dont believe in killing Daniel. it is part of my basic belief system. for instance if a person was a mass murderer i think the correct punishment for them would be a life sentance not the death penalty. i think they should live the remainder of their days having to live with what they have done. killing them would be wrong in my opinion. two wrongs doesnt make a right. but that is just my opinion Daniel. you are entitled to your opionion Daniel. later anita , ps i hope you are feeling well today Daniel.

Response:

Anita, I think someone has already killed. Their attitudes are inclined to doing it again. That’s not okay with me. Kill the killers. I am a Roman Catholic and I don’t like racists or control freaks. Daniel Urtiz

Response:

"Daniel Urtiz" wrote in message

news:21947-41FAE1B4-577@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net… > Anita, > I think someone has already killed. Their attitudes are inclined to > doing it again. That’s not okay with me. > Kill the killers. I am a Roman Catholic and I don’t like racists or > control freaks. > Daniel Urtiz

Daniel, i don’t like racists either. and i hope i aint a control freak as well. yes killers are likely to kill again , this is true. but what good does killing them do, why not just lock them up for life and make them think about what they have done. i would think that would be more of a punishment. but i respect your opinion Daniel, you are entitled to believe what you believe. i wouldnt try to change your mind on this. later anita

Response:

"pines" wrote in message

news:q0CKd.108234$w62.36461@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Daniel Urtiz" wrote in message > news:21947-41FAE1B4-577@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net… >> Anita, >> I think someone has already killed. Their attitudes are inclined to >> doing it again. That’s not okay with me. >> Kill the killers. I am a Roman Catholic and I don’t like racists or >> control freaks. >> Daniel Urtiz > Daniel, > i don’t like racists either. > and i hope i aint a control freak as well. > yes killers are likely to kill again , this is true. but what good does > killing them do, why not just lock them up for life and make them think > about what they have done. i would think that would be more of a > punishment. > but i respect your opinion Daniel, you are entitled to believe what you > believe. i wouldnt try to change your mind on this. > later anita

How come you dont understand they enjoyed what they did and love to relive it over and over again in their minds? Even while locked up in prison. Its what turns them on. Its not something they feel bad about having done. Locking them up isnt punishment. Its free room and board. Troop

Response:

"pines" wrote in message

news:OjAKd.107661$w62.54788@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Daniel Urtiz" wrote in message > news:22426-41FAC92A-192@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net… >> Anita, >> You can get too literal about the Ten Commandments. I do not believe >> killing is always wrong, but that might be more Roman Catholic than it >> is Jewish. It might sometimes be called an "indulgence", if it serves >> God’s end. >> When you kill, you can also die, but I’m not as afraid to die as I used >> to be. I’ve matured quite a bit since John touched my hand. >> Daniel Urtiz > Daniel, > i aint really afraid to die either, but i would prefer not to do it at > this > time. > i personally dont believe in killing Daniel. it is part of my basic belief > system. for instance if a person was a mass murderer i think the correct > punishment for them would be a life sentance not the death penalty. i > think > they should live the remainder of their days having to live with what they > have done. killing them would be wrong in my opinion. two wrongs doesnt > make > a right. but that is just my opinion Daniel. > you are entitled to your opionion Daniel. > later anita , > ps i hope you are feeling well today Daniel.

You have a shallow view of serial killers motives. They would love to remain alive so they could recall all those gleefull moments when they plunged the knife into the chest of some young girl as they were orgasming into her. They liked what they did. The feel no guilt whatsoever. None. Its why they never stopped. Its why they did it in the first place. They enjoyed it and they replay it over and over again in their mind, in their sick, twisted, sexual fantasies. By following your opinion, you would be giving them exactly what they wish for, an endless time until their death to relive all the murders they committed. Troop

Response:

"Trooper" wrote in message

news:5LSdnWk4cIImImHcRVn-hQ@gbronline.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "pines" wrote in message > news:OjAKd.107661$w62.54788@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net… > > "Daniel Urtiz" wrote in message > > news:22426-41FAC92A-192@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net… > >> Anita, > >> You can get too literal about the Ten Commandments. I do not believe > >> killing is always wrong, but that might be more Roman Catholic than it > >> is Jewish. It might sometimes be called an "indulgence", if it serves > >> God’s end. > >> When you kill, you can also die, but I’m not as afraid to die as I used > >> to be. I’ve matured quite a bit since John touched my hand. > >> Daniel Urtiz > > Daniel, > > i aint really afraid to die either, but i would prefer not to do it at > > this > > time. > > i personally dont believe in killing Daniel. it is part of my basic belief > > system. for instance if a person was a mass murderer i think the correct > > punishment for them would be a life sentance not the death penalty. i > > think > > they should live the remainder of their days having to live with what they > > have done. killing them would be wrong in my opinion. two wrongs doesnt > > make > > a right. but that is just my opinion Daniel. > > you are entitled to your opionion Daniel. > > later anita , > > ps i hope you are feeling well today Daniel. > You have a shallow view of serial killers motives. They would love to > remain alive so they could recall all those gleefull moments when they > plunged the knife into the chest of some young girl as they were orgasming > into her. They liked what they did. The feel no guilt whatsoever. None. > Its why they never stopped. Its why they did it in the first place. They > enjoyed it and they replay it over and over again in their mind, in their > sick, twisted, sexual fantasies. > By following your opinion, you would be giving them exactly what they wish > for, an endless time until their death to relive all the murders they > committed. > Troop

Troop, i have to disagree with you due to the fact that i dont believe in the death penalty. two wrongs never make a right. ever. plus you have some poor guy that had to put the needles in killing the guy. maybe that guy in retrospect will not be able to live with having taking anothers life. thus making a before innocent man suffer for the rest of his life. and yes i know that some serial killers possible all continue to get off on what they have done. but it is up to God to punish them appropiatally . killing them is not a suffiecent punishment in my opinion. only God can do that and only God can judge them accordingly in my hubble opinion. i dont like the idea of them getting free room and board for the rest of their lives but i just dont agree with killing people. like timothy mcveigh . he wanted to die. therefore attomatically his punishment should have been the opposite. i think he was having trouble with all the pain he had created and wanted to die because of it. he should have been forced to live with it. i am sorry you find me so shallow Trooper later anita

Response:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:28:41 GMT, "pines" wrote: > i am sorry you find me so shallow Trooper

Don’t be. He’s a normo who hates schizophrenics and finds every excuse he can to slag us. The only real damage he does is his name/rank/serial number worship of psychiatric orthodoxy, which our real-life experience–something he lacks–tells us to be suspicious of. -wl

Response:

"wiggly lumber" wrote in message

news:4mgqv0pnpi63m7fbppa35sv014cosjkjqm@4ax.com… > On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:28:41 GMT, "pines" post.com> wrote: > > i am sorry you find me so shallow Trooper > Don’t be. He’s a normo who hates schizophrenics and finds every > excuse he can to slag us. > The only real damage he does is his name/rank/serial number worship of > psychiatric orthodoxy, which our real-life experience–something he > lacks–tells us to be suspicious of. > -wl

wiggly lumber, thanks for the information i did know that he was a normo. that makes a difference. thanks again later anita

Response:

"pines" wrote in message

news:8vbLd.119791$w62.77933@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "wiggly lumber" wrote in message > news:4mgqv0pnpi63m7fbppa35sv014cosjkjqm@4ax.com… >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:28:41 GMT, "pines" > post.com> wrote: >> > i am sorry you find me so shallow Trooper >> Don’t be. He’s a normo who hates schizophrenics and finds every >> excuse he can to slag us. >> The only real damage he does is his name/rank/serial number worship of >> psychiatric orthodoxy, which our real-life experience–something he >> lacks–tells us to be suspicious of. >> -wl > wiggly lumber, > thanks for the information i did know that he was a normo. that makes a > difference. thanks again > later anita

flacid wood is an idiot. I dont even know why hes calling me a normal member. Do normal people have thoughts that their computer is watching them and that they should wrap their chimny in romex wiring to prevent spy rays? LOL. You idiot, I take my meds and they work. So if you want to call me a normo, go for it. What moron creates a derogatory word for healthy people anyway? Troop

Response:

"pines" wrote in message

news:tH9Ld.119235$w62.40153@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Trooper" wrote in message > news:5LSdnWk4cIImImHcRVn-hQ@gbronline.com… >> "pines" wrote in message >> news:OjAKd.107661$w62.54788@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net… >> > "Daniel Urtiz" wrote in message >> > news:22426-41FAC92A-192@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net… >> >> Anita, >> >> You can get too literal about the Ten Commandments. I do not believe >> >> killing is always wrong, but that might be more Roman Catholic than it >> >> is Jewish. It might sometimes be called an "indulgence", if it serves >> >> God’s end. >> >> When you kill, you can also die, but I’m not as afraid to die as I >> >> used >> >> to be. I’ve matured quite a bit since John touched my hand. >> >> Daniel Urtiz >> > Daniel, >> > i aint really afraid to die either, but i would prefer not to do it at >> > this >> > time. >> > i personally dont believe in killing Daniel. it is part of my basic > belief >> > system. for instance if a person was a mass murderer i think the >> > correct >> > punishment for them would be a life sentance not the death penalty. i >> > think >> > they should live the remainder of their days having to live with what > they >> > have done. killing them would be wrong in my opinion. two wrongs doesnt >> > make >> > a right. but that is just my opinion Daniel. >> > you are entitled to your opionion Daniel. >> > later anita , >> > ps i hope you are feeling well today Daniel. >> You have a shallow view of serial killers motives. They would love to >> remain alive so they could recall all those gleefull moments when they >> plunged the knife into the chest of some young girl as they were >> orgasming >> into her. They liked what they did. The feel no guilt whatsoever. >> None. >> Its why they never stopped. Its why they did it in the first place. >> They >> enjoyed it and they replay it over and over again in their mind, in their >> sick, twisted, sexual fantasies. >> By following your opinion, you would be giving them exactly what they >> wish >> for, an endless time until their death to relive all the murders they >> committed. >> Troop > Troop, > i have to disagree with you due to the fact that i dont believe in the > death > penalty. two wrongs never make a right.

Nobody is trying to make anything right. They are punishing somebody for being evil. > ever. plus you have some poor guy > that had to put the needles in killing the guy. maybe that guy in > retrospect > will not be able to live with having taking anothers life. thus making a > before innocent man suffer for the rest of his life.

The men who volunteer for such things are fully prepared to deal with the results. They are usually long time, and many time retired, members, of that part of the unit. They arent strangers to the requirements for the job. > and yes i know that some serial killers possible all continue to get off > on what they have done. but it is up to God to punish them appropiatally . > killing them is not a suffiecent punishment in my opinion. only God can do > that and only God can judge them accordingly in my hubble opinion. > i dont like the idea of them getting free room and board for the rest of > their lives but i just dont agree with killing people.

We have seperation of church and state. We arent to involve imaginary gods in our running of affiairs, or governmental behavior. As a nation we cant rely on an imaginary god to punish anyone. We need to do it. Its our right, and out duty. > like timothy mcveigh > . he wanted to die. therefore attomatically his punishment should have > been > the opposite. i think he was having trouble with all the pain he had > created > and wanted to die because of it. he should have been forced to live with > it. > i am sorry you find me so shallow Trooper > later anita

Thats a very egotistical view to have dont you think? I didnt insinuate you were a shallow person, I said that was a shallow view. Meaning I didnt feel youd taken all the facts into account. I meant shallow in its primary context. I dont know you, I wouldnt hazard a guess as to what kind of person you are. Maybe youre shallow, maybe not, I dont know, dont care. I was just commenting upon the opinion. If a man rapes and murders a bunch of kids… he needs to be executed. We cant allow him to live, or serial killers will be content to murder as many people as they can until they get caught and then theyll just masturbate to the memories of doing it every day until their death, unless we kill them. The only way to eliminate their continual reliving of the thrill they got by butchering someone alive and then fucking the remaining corpse, is to kill them. I dont think you understand what true evil is. Even god commands us to do the unthinkable when its neccessary. True evil exists and we need to eliminate it for our own safety, our peace of mind, and for the victims families sake. Troop

Response:

Safety. Expect. The Scourging at The Pillar. Nature. Brain tumor. Enemy’s meat. I Am That I Am. Adultery. Favorite. Focus. Killer make. Butter.

Response:

Laughter. Nosy. Dislike. Excommunication. Needles. Thought. Meditation. Holiness. Hygiene. Disordered love. Vector. Algebra.

Response:

why the internet

admin — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Barely! To open your eyes the rest of the way, try to convince people you own a talking fish. See if they react to you in much the same way as when you respond to every question by yabbering a Bible verse. Write a book full of unsupported assertions about talking fish, and quote from that every time someone tries to talk to you. If you find people get irritated when you yabber about your talking fish, a logical person would suspect the hatred you observed was not for "God," and not even for any particular nonsensical belief, but for belief in ANY sort of nonsense. People who insist on denying common sense and the plain evidence of their senses tend to get a harsh reception unless they have the right combination of favorable circumstances and personality traits to exploit other people’s hunger for artificial certainty. Another guy who misinterpreted outrage is Terrell Owens (wide receiver, Philadelphia Eagles, NFL, American football). After he appeared in that commercial with the Desperate Housewives actress who dropped her towel and appeared to jump into his arms naked, he thought people were complaining to the FCC because *he* was in the commercial! if by God’s Will, God would work His power through His servant and some non-believer was to feel the mustard seed of faith God gave to them as a result of our Lord God Almighty using me to spread His Word, then I’m going to give thanks to God for Him having allowed me to witness.

So whatever happened to calling down fire from heaven like Elijah? Did your God take early retirement? take God’s Word to the nonbeliever then remember: Luk 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

Where I live, you can shake your shoes, but the mud stays on. It’s an outrage! Your witness might improve a bit jim if you learned some humility.

How’s humility working out for you? Just sayin.

But with humility there can be no particular religion, because a humble man never claims to know things he does not know. A humble man, for example, would say he doesn’t know for sure whether Balaam’s ass spoke. The only evidence for that improbable event is one ancient written account, and not even the people who believe ancient writings reveal spiritual truths can agree on exactly which spiritual truths a given piece of ancient writing reveals. A man who is absolutely convinced every word in "the Bible"* is literally true is not humble. He thinks he is objectively better than all those infidel sinners who will be Left Behind. *Opinions differ on exactly which ancient writings belong in "the Bible." Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant groups all recognize different canons. Jim probably doesn’t even know the history of how his Bible came to be, the process by which councils of men decided which books to include and exclude. All attempts by modern apologists to write definitive tests for canonicity quickly collapse into laughable tangles of logical contradictions. The bottom line: the books that made the cut did so simply because some human decided they should. Different humans liked different books, so the various "Bibles" in use today are not all the same. When committees of men constructed their Bibles from the large set of religious writings available to them, the authors of those writings were long dead. Which raises the interesting question of what sort of Bibles *those* writers would put together if they could come back to life today. For example, would Moses approve of his works appearing in Jim’s anthology? Is it possible God inspired Moses to help write a book he wouldn’t agree with? — the Danimal

Response:

[....] Yeah, it’s so bad for Christians to post about Christian things on Christian groups…right? Maybe you should find other groups to read. K.C.

you want to see bad? then ask God to give you the strength to take His Word outside of the safe zone. I knew there would be people out there who would not believe. I did not know there would be people out there who would show such hate for God. my eyes were opened. if by God’s Will, God would work His power through His servant and some non-believer was to feel the mustard seed of faith God gave to them as a result of our Lord God Almighty using me to spread His Word, then I’m going to give thanks to God for Him having allowed me to witness. take God’s Word to the nonbeliever then remember: Luk 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them. I love God, Jim

Response:

the other day a person was telling people how they fall into sin. not true as was replied to him by a listener who became the speaker. people don’t fall into sin. people go knowing into sin. people make announcements concerning their availability to jump into sin. people circle dates on their calendar to make an appointment for sin. people give out their phone number so sin can call them. people don’t fall into sin, they go knowing after making plans to sin. I love God, Jim

Response:

I love God, Jim

Reminds me of the radio station here. At Xmas time, they have a little segment, where they read letters to Santa. A lot of the kids, end their letter with I love you Santa. It’s so easy to love some imaginery character. Same child like belief. Kids grow up and then realize that there is no Santa. Religionists never grow up!!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I love God, Jim Reminds me of the radio station here. At Xmas time, they have a little segment, where they read letters to Santa. A lot of the kids, end their letter with I love you Santa. It’s so easy to love some imaginery character. Same child like belief. Kids grow up and then realize that there is no Santa. Religionists never grow up!!

the santa lie is the worse lie any parent will ever tell to their children. I love God, Jim

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I love God, Jim Reminds me of the radio station here. At Xmas time, they have a little segment, where they read letters to Santa. A lot of the kids, end their letter with I love you Santa. It’s so easy to love some imaginery character. Same child like belief. Kids grow up and then realize that there is no Santa. Religionists never grow up!! the santa lie is the worse lie any parent will ever tell to their children.

That’s correct. Santa Clause is a type of antichrist, rewarding people for being good, rather than for being forgiven. Of course the kids are not good, they haven’t been good, but they say they have and then get rewarded for lying. I had to observe that excruciating ceremony this year. We don’t have it at home though. Uncle Davey

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [....] Yeah, it’s so bad for Christians to post about Christian things on Christian groups…right? Maybe you should find other groups to read. K.C. you want to see bad? then ask God to give you the strength to take His Word outside of the safe zone. I knew there would be people out there who would not believe. I did not know there would be people out there who would show such hate for God. my eyes were opened. if by God’s Will, God would work His power through His servant and some non-believer was to feel the mustard seed of faith God gave to them as a result of our Lord God Almighty using me to spread His Word, then I’m going to give thanks to God for Him having allowed me to witness. take God’s Word to the nonbeliever then remember: Luk 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

It’s an outrage! Your witness might improve a bit jim if you learned some humility. Just sayin. miguel

Response:

Why Christianity & Evolution Can't Agree

admin — Sun, 19 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – …and His choosing to do what I suggest is a possibility is a sign of His not being in control? I do not see it that way… I guess I would quibble with the implication above that God would look at His creation and see a hominid upon which to bestow a soul. He knew exactly when the homonid would become a human and any soul was bestowed upon that human long before anything remotely human lived. Question that assumption a hominid can become a human, that this is a possible outcome of a purely material process of change like natural evolution. But no matter how many atoms you line up you don’t get an immortal being. So if you were the product of a purely material process you could not enjoy heaven with God forever. But everlasting life is possible, so you, Elmer Bataitis, are not a product of purely natural forces!

But I am a product of what *seem to be* purely natural forces! That’s what God created in creating this universe. Elmer Bataitis

Intelligent Design claims another victim.

admin — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

helen wrote: > ‘intelligent’? > ……………….where? > absurd everywhere

Yeah, how about the Sadistic Joker Theory? …or the Manic-Depressive Designer Theory? http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.wicca/msg/e87fbf3760…

Response:

"Ohsojourner" pulled the needle out his vein long enough to rant thusly: news:1102790808.025580.76870@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > Yeah, how about the Sadistic Joker Theory? …or the Manic-Depressive > Designer Theory?

That’s just what a LastTuesdayist would say. Heretic. — http://eerierodent.blogspot.com/ "My name is Mike. I take care of the place while The Master is away."

Response:

"Highly Annoyed Rodent of Unusual Size & Typing Ability" in news:Xns95BC724BE16DDfkjdlkvjcxoiuarepoij@68.6.19.6: >> Yeah, how about the Sadistic Joker Theory? …or the Manic-Depressive >> Designer Theory? > That’s just what a LastTuesdayist would say. Heretic.

well, these theories weren’t Created in Seven Days, you know — (click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click click )

Response:

ci+ wrote: > "Highly Annoyed Rodent of Unusual Size & Typing Ability" in > news:Xns95BC724BE16DDfkjdlkvjcxoiuarepoij@68.6.19.6: >>>Yeah, how about the Sadistic Joker Theory? …or the Manic-Depressive >>>Designer Theory? >>That’s just what a LastTuesdayist would say. Heretic. > well, these theories weren’t Created in Seven Days, you know

Well, except for the ‘7 Day Theory’. — halfblotto@s,o,f,t,n,o,m,e.p,e,t – Bart: Am I the only one in horrible pain? Homer: You’re the only one who won’t shut up about it!

Response:

steve…@webtv.net in news:1102760602.894033.181890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > Yes it does sound like tedious reading, actually he wrote 35 books. Are > you spiderman by any chance?, is that you?

not a chance. but i don’t look like the Marvel version of ’spidey’ either. :> i look more like a real spider… missing 4 (no, missing only 3!) legs :>

Response:

"ci+" > "Highly Annoyed Rodent of Unusual Size & Typing Ability" > in > news:Xns95BC724BE16DDfkjdlkvjcxoiuarepoij@68.6.19.6: >>> Yeah, how about the Sadistic Joker Theory? …or the >>> Manic-Depressive Designer Theory? >> That’s just what a LastTuesdayist would say. Heretic. > well, these theories weren’t Created in Seven Days, you know

It was all created Last Thursday, allthough a schism may arise on whether or not part of a ‘Seinfeld’ repeat was not created due to the time the creation took. It’s all very logical. — http://eerierodent.blogspot.com/ "My name is Mike. I take care of the place while The Master is away."

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -steve…@webtv.net wrote: > ABC News > Famous Atheist Now Believes in God > One of World’s Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, > Based on Scientific Evidence > Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity > with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a > guiding force in the construction of the universe. > "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about > constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first > reproducing organism" > The old guy is a famous atheist who wrote 35 books on the subject, he > still does not believe in a personal God ………. yet. > The Associated Press > NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 – A British philosophy professor who has been > a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed > his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific > evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. > At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew > has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have > created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation > for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a > telephone interview from England. > Flew said he’s best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God > was not actively involved in people’s lives. > "I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and > far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as > omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It > could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a > purpose, I suppose." > Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and > Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford > religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis. > Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while > teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in > Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, > articles, lectures and debates. > There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent > months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife. > Yet biologists’ investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost > unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce > (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the > new video, "Has Science Discovered God?" > The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author > Roy Abraham Varghese’s Institute for Metascientific Research in > Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist > Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John > Haldane of Scotland’s University of St. Andrews. > The first hint of Flew’s turn was a letter to the August-September > issue of Britain’s Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately > difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic > theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote. > The letter commended arguments in Schroeder’s "The Hidden Face of God" > and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic > layman. > This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new > outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and > Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press. > Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets > people, well "that’s too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been > guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, > wherever it leads." > Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate > student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the > atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew > accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife. > Flew’s "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about > atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to > Flew’s reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don’t think it’s like a big > deal." > Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity > with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a > guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian > evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life. > A Methodist minister’s son, Flew became an atheist at 15. > Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could > constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to > wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all. > Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off > the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over > God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on > those arguing that God exists.

‘intelligent’? ……………….where? absurd everywhere h

Response:

"helen" in news:1102646723.074499.297420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > ‘intelligent’? > ……………….where? > absurd everywhere > h

have you lost your leading tilde!???! if so, let me know when your period (ha) of bereavement ends… (or maybe you already find my ellipses .. a bit… mmm… sexy?) — love the sin, screw the sinner. oo baby http://images.google.com/images?q=site%3Aarchive.bodypainting.co.uk+s…

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -ci+ wrote: > steve…@webtv.net in > news:1102643210.938482.310620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: afaik, > agnostics are the only one’s who make sense. > im not going to dig through 15 plus books of 400 plus pages of long > winded ‘philosophy’ to try to find where teis ‘convert’ sees ‘proof’ > of ‘god’… > > Yet biologists’ investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost > > unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to > > produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew > > says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?" > has Flew manaegd to synopsize his ‘proof’ anywhere yet?

there shoold at leest be a cliff notes version fer those of us with ADHD — ———————————————————————— Ms Pnoopie Pnats Usnet Legend http://mspoopiepants.blogspot.com/ ———————————————————————— ———————— Teh REEL Official ASS Gallery http://assgallery.freeserverhost.com

Response:

ci+ wrote: > steve…@webtv.net in

news:1102643210.938482.310620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > afaik, agnostics are the only one’s who make sense. > im not going to dig through 15 plus books of 400 plus pages of long

winded ‘philosophy’ to try to find where teis ‘convert’ sees – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> ‘proof’ of ‘god’… > > Yet biologists’ investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost > > unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce > > (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the > > new video, "Has Science Discovered God?" > has Flew manaegd to synopsize his ‘proof’ anywhere yet? > — > love the sin, screw the sinner. > oo baby

http://images.google.com/images?q=site%3Aarchive.bodypainting.co.uk+s… Yes it does sound like tedious reading, actually he wrote 35 books. Are you spiderman by any chance?, is that you?

Response:

steve…@webtv.net in news:1102643210.938482.310620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: afaik, agnostics are the only one’s who make sense. im not going to dig through 15 plus books of 400 plus pages of long winded ‘philosophy’ to try to find where teis ‘convert’ sees ‘proof’ of ‘god’… > Yet biologists’ investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost > unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce > (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the > new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

has Flew manaegd to synopsize his ‘proof’ anywhere yet? — love the sin, screw the sinner. oo baby http://images.google.com/images?q=site%3Aarchive.bodypainting.co.uk+s…

Response:

ABC News Famous Atheist Now Believes in God One of World’s Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism" The old guy is a famous atheist who wrote 35 books on the subject, he still does not believe in a personal God ………. yet. The Associated Press NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 – A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he’s best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people’s lives. "I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis. Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife. Yet biologists’ investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?" The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese’s Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland’s University of St. Andrews. The first hint of Flew’s turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain’s Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote. The letter commended arguments in Schroeder’s "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman. This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press. Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that’s too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife. Flew’s "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew’s reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don’t think it’s like a big deal." Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life. A Methodist minister’s son, Flew became an atheist at 15. Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all. Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists.

Response:

The knob on the Popes Kippa

admin — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The knob on the Popes Kippa? Why does the Pope have a little knob on the top of his Kippa? snip Get well soon. That’s a nice way of putting it…. DH

As my mother always said, if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all. RA

Response:

The knob on the Popes Kippa

God is Faithful

admin — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) x-no-archive: yes copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group, folks) God is Faithful The problem with all this is, how does an individual muster up enough faith to believe the whole thing in the first place? Having been raised in a Christian home, I was exposed to Christianity at a very young age. What I noticed as a youngster was more on the line of Christianity calling on us to be better, nicer, more talented, always MORE. Evidently you aren’t interested in a faith that expects and encourages you to G R O W. I *AM* interested in your faith… that’s why I’m here. Just not interested in participating in it. But I have spent my last 50 years studying WHY we believe in Christ. We aren’t stupid. There are MANY educated Christians in MANY professions, such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, programmers, research scientists. I don’t doubt that… in fact, I know it to be true. My background is similar to the one you’ve described for yourself. I know several intelligent, thinking christians myself… in fact, most of my friends and family call themselves "christian"… That’s why they’re so much fun to talk to about this issue. The point at which we break down is when I simply ask, "why?" What would compel a person to believe something like that? Which is not to ask why one would WANT to believe it… I think the benefits from such belief are evident. But how could you take an honest look around you and believe such a thing? How could anyone take an HONEST look around themselves and NOT believe in the God of the Bible? The Truth is so EVIDENT.

In what way is the ‘truth’ of your religion evident? Show me the evidence. That’s where I just don’t get it. If you sincerely search, and you’re not merely being a troll, I suggest you do this. Begin reading the New Testament in a modern translation you can enjoy and understand easily. Ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to you as you read. Something like, "I want to get to know you, God! Show me who you are and teach me as I read." He has promised to NEVER fail to fulfill that promise.

I’ve tried your religion in the past, and it didn’t work. I guess I could never really convince myself that I was talking to someone other than myself during ‘prayer’. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And most of the time when the conversation breaks down to this pivotal point, people start getting pissed off and calling names, or don’t have anything substantive to say… at least so far in my experience. Well, ask your questions, as long as you are sincere, and genuine,and respectful. I have trained in "answering questions" (also called "apologetics") since my childhood. I may have had a benefit you have not had. ALL my pastors from my earliest memories were the Bible scholars of the 20th Century. SO I learned from the most learned men of my time (and disagreed with them). Believing in something that flies in the face of experience, It doesn’t fly in the face of MY experience.

Probably because you’ve been indoctrinated to percieve the world through the lens of your religion. I’ve had that perspective myself in the past, but have since shed it. Only means you have had a very dull life. I know few Christians who can’t tell you about the miracles they’ve experienced. I don’t doubt that. I can see how people might tend to call really cool events "miracles"… A "miracle" by definition, is a "supernatural" event, an event with no known physical cause.

Right. How do you "know" when a miracle has happened? Isn’t it possible that if YOU can’t explain an event, you might assume it to be "miraculous", when in fact it might have a perfectly natural origin? I would probably just chalk it up to a beneficial turn of events. All a matter of perspective, I suppose. You could say that. AGAIN, however, not only have I experienced miracles (healings, hearing God’s voice, feeling His touch on my body), most Christians I know have done so as well. And it is frankly ignorant of you to deny merely because you have not experienced.

I’m not claiming absolute knowledge of the nonexistence of miracles. I’m merely pointing out how improbable it is that anything supernatural has ever happened. You might as well deny that bananas exist merely because you’ve never seen one.

Right… much like you might as well deny the existence of flying invisible pink elephants merely because you’ve never seen one. evidence, and common sense must take a huge amount of faith… doesn’t it? You ask questions that are tilted against the right answer. I find NO conflict between common sense and faith. For one thing, every time I see a miracle, it’s that much easier to believe the next one is on its way.

Because you’ve convinced yourself of the "reality" of these things. If you had a non-supernatural perspective, you might feel differently. I know MANY Christians who have advanced educations. Logic and belief are NOT opposites. I agree. But you DID suggest as much.

Sorry you misunderstood.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Having been raised in a Christian home, I was exposed to Christianity at a very young age. I earnestly doubt that – You sure talk a lot, retard, for someone who isn’t asked much, if anything. Indeed you do, You are SUCH a loser when the best insult you can come up with is to repeat my words back to me.

Actually, John, the poster who has done you the most damage and insulted you the deepest is … you. When you speak pretentious words which are not able to be backed up you damage yourself. When you try to hide behind your mental illness you damage yourself. You have come up with some real lulus in your time. It is a pity. And the few people who have tried to warn you away from doing that you have scorned and shoved aside. When you make a claim, you stick to it like superglue — even though the claim is patently and demonstrably false. I remember your claim about the church buildings supposedly built by Paul the Apostle with the first century cornerstones with Hindu-Arabic numeration (750 years before those numbers were invented). The claim was silly. You should have let it drop. You should have apologized. Instead you waged jihad against those who asserted (correctly) that you were in error. So actually the best way a person has to insult you is to repeat your failed claims back to you. I feel sorry for you, but you earned this. But then your IQ of 50 is no match for mine. And, no, you don’t need to know what mine is, other than WAY over double yours.

And now we have another couple of assertions without evidence. John, do you even know what IQ is? Do you realize that IQ won’t make your errors right or your lies to be true? I could easily believe you have an IQ between 85 and 115. So does 68% of the rest of the population. I could even see you with an IQ between 115 and 130. 13.5% of the population fits there. But I have seen people with genius IQs in a prison where I teach because they did not know how to behave themselves. If you would wish to seem smarter than ordinary folk such as myself, you might wish to start by saying the truth and nothing but. Then you might progress to apologizing for past errors. You might also wish to quit using your mental illness as a crutch for bad behavior. And finally, you might start respecting others even when they disagree with you and take an inward look at yourself when your arguments fail to convince others. Of course, I expect a diatribe against me if you say anything at all. Or else I expect my post to get no response as if I were talking to a brick wall. But you profess to be a Christian, and as a Christian I rather feel that you need the counsel whether you like it or not. It is not good for us to put our Savior to shame by our bad behavior. Regards, Raymond E. Griffith (snipped rest)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Path: news.netfront.net!skynet.be!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.freenet.de!newspee r1.nwr.nac.net!ply1.onvoy!onvoy.com!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POS TED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian. biblestudy,alt.religion.christianity,alt.religion,christian.roman-catholic X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 85 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.5.191.227 Xref: news.netfront.net alt.talk.creationism:147776 alt.religion.christian.baptist:361502 alt.religion.christian.biblestudy:166230 alt.religion.christianity:90479 alt.religion:53895 x-no-archive: yes copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) Path: news.netfront.net!newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.g iganews.com!indigo.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!news-out. octanews.net!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian. biblestudy,alt.religion.christianity,alt.religion,christian.roman-catholic X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 35 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.5.186.218 Xref: news.netfront.net alt.talk.creationism:147757 alt.religion.christian.baptist:361369 alt.religion.christian.biblestudy:166214 alt.religion.christianity:90463 alt.religion:53860 x-no-archive: yes copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) Having been raised in a Christian home, I was exposed to Christianity at a very young age. I earnestly doubt that – You sure talk a lot, retard, for someone who isn’t asked much, if anything. Indeed you do, You are SUCH a loser when the best insult you can come up with is to

Yes, you are a loser. But then, that is one of your best selling points./ The famous jw whines. *I have mental problems, nobody loves me, every one picks on me, I am so brilliant, I am so smart & no one believes me, I have no money, society is against me, no one cares about my problems, etc* If there is a whine to be made, sooner or later your name will be associated with it. repeat my words back to me.

The insult, i any, is in your lack of cognitive thinking skills & your childish attempt to denigrate those that know more than you. You are not worth the time, let alone the effort of a truly original insulting post. Your presence is insult enough But then your IQ of 50 is no match for mine. And, no, you don’t need

As I said, the famous jw whine. AS to the IQ, your actions indicate one of a -50, so it really does not mater now does it. After all, you are unable to discuss your myth in depth, you can’t do anything beyond parrot what you read & name hollow threats or claims for what your gods are going to do to others. Nt much there for an IQ in the way of evidence. to know what mine is, other than WAY over double yours.

Even where it true, which it is not, so what. I still know more & am able you provide evidence for that then you have ever come close to demonstrating. You can’t even tell the audience how your gods came to be or where they came from. I can, & I can provide the basis for that information without crawling back & hiding in quotes that are in error to start with. BTW, there is no one with an IQ as high as your’s according to you, what is it anyway, 208, 210, more? jw

The whiner waiting to die, no more, no less. & his posting history backs it up. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – but then, you have to have something to do until Seattle is blown away like you predicted. Wait, that was last year. OK, you need something to do while evidence is manufactured that the claimed ossuary of James is decreed real & true, even though that was not the final consensus. Wait, that was the ossuary of St. James according to you. You need something to do while the new Cliff notes ate being printed so you can discuss when your parent myth wet monotheistic, & actually get it right or at least come close. Yet, the information is in your grimorie, if you can read in context. Or else it is just your apparent nasty streak that makes you try to cock a leg on every message you can. With your posting history, it can be many things, most repulsive. jw you look and behave more like the product of a really weirdo cult. You have signally failed to break away from the cult and become Christian in any form most of us can recognise And I earnestly doubt that it is all due to "illness" – even schizophrenia If you were ever Christian one would have difficulty explaining your membership of your present "demon" obsessed cult Somehow you missed or were misfired Or missed by the clean up crew.

walksalone who doubts jw will ever have an original thought of his own, the shock of such would kill him before he had time to post one of ho is PTLs. — The Hadith Qudsi 6 The first of people against whom judgment will be pronounced on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who died a martyr. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them. The Almighty will say: And what did you do about them? He will say: I fought for you until I died a martyr. He will say: You have lied – you did but fight that it might be said [of you]: He is courageous. And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Path: news.netfront.net!newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.g iganews.com!indigo.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!news-out. octanews.net!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian. biblestudy,alt.religion.christianity,alt.religion,christian.roman-catholic X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 35 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.5.186.218 Xref: news.netfront.net alt.talk.creationism:147757 alt.religion.christian.baptist:361369 alt.religion.christian.biblestudy:166214 alt.religion.christianity:90463 alt.religion:53860 x-no-archive: yes copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group) Having been raised in a Christian home, I was exposed to Christianity at a very young age. I earnestly doubt that – You sure talk a lot, retard, for someone who isn’t asked much, if anything.

Indeed you do, but then, you have to have something to do until Seattle is blown away like you predicted. Wait, that was last year. OK, you need something to do while evidence is manufactured that the claimed ossuary of James is decreed real & true, even though that was not the final consensus. Wait, that was the ossuary of St. James according to you. You need something to do while the new Cliff notes ate being printed so you can discuss when your parent myth wet monotheistic, & actually get it right or at least come close. Yet, the information is in your grimorie, if you can read in context. Or else it is just your apparent nasty streak that makes you try to cock a leg on every message you can. With your posting history, it can be many things, most repulsive. jw you look and behave more like the product of a really weirdo cult. You have signally failed to break away from the cult and become Christian in any form most of us can recognise And I earnestly doubt that it is all due to "illness" – even schizophrenia If you were ever Christian one would have difficulty explaining your membership of your present "demon" obsessed cult Somehow you missed or were misfired

Or missed by the clean up crew. walksalone who tends to agree with PL, jw is nothing like he pretends to be. Other than a liar. — The Hadith Qudsi 6 The first of people against whom judgment will be pronounced on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who died a martyr. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them. The Almighty will say: And what did you do about them? He will say: I fought for you until I died a martyr. He will say: You have lied – you did but fight that it might be said [of you]: He is courageous. And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.

Response:

A "miracle" by definition, is a "supernatural" event, an event with no known physical cause.

How does a natural human being immersed in a natural world get information on an event *which by definition* has no natural evidence???

Response:

. I know few Christians who can’t tell you about the miracles they’ve experienced.

That is because you have been hanging out with weirdos If you surround yourself with lies you become a liar too in the end!

Response:

Evidently you aren’t interested in a faith that expects and encourages you to G R O W.

But you didn’t John – you just did the "Born Again" Fraud trip and never grew up again. An intellectual retard as a result – sorry – member of a Cult! But I have spent my last 50 years studying WHY we believe in Christ. We aren’t stupid. There are MANY educated Christians in MANY professions, such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, programmers, research scientists.

Some people can study forever and learn precisely nothing That is your only achievement I know MANY Christians who have advanced educations. Logic and belief are NOT opposites.

But logic reason and indeed Christianity are not compatable with your personal belief system That is the important point You aren’t a Baptist or even a Christian – you are a cult member!

Response:

God is Faithful The problem with all this is, how does an individual muster up enough faith to believe the whole thing in the first place? Believing in something that flies in the face of experience, evidence, and common sense must take a huge amount of faith… doesn’t it?

You’re probably too weak to muster that kind of faith. Just forget about it. Don’t lose any sleep. Your experience seems paltry, your evidence mostly hidden, and your common sense must be uncommonly nebulous. Go back to sleep.

Response:

Having been raised in a Christian home, I was exposed to Christianity at a very young age.

I earnestly doubt that – you look and behave more like the product of a really weirdo cult. You have signally failed to break away from the cult and become Christian in any form most of us can recognise And I earnestly doubt that it is all due to "illness" – even schizophrenia If you were ever Christian one would have difficulty explaining your membership of your present "demon" obsessed cult Somehow you missed or were misfired

Response:

inferiority & let the following brown stains on the carpet, watch your step. Followup set to droll trolls home group, those poor Baptists. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Path: news.netfront.net!newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.g iganews.com!newspeer1.nwr.nac.net!ply1.onvoy!onvoy.com!feed.news.qwest.net! news.uswest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian. biblestudy,alt.religion.christianity,alt.religion,christian.roman-catholic X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 52 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.5.177.123 Xref: news.netfront.net alt.talk.creationism:146480 alt.religion.christian.baptist:357760 alt.religion.christian.biblestudy:165511 alt.religion.christianity:89555 alt.religion:52705 x-no-archive: yes copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group, folks) God is Faithful The problem with all this is, how does an individual muster up enough faith to believe the whole thing in the first place? Having been raised in a Christian home, I was exposed to Christianity

Is this the same xian home where you learned at the age of four to have sex, with a five year old girl? Is this the same xian home where you were*abused* by men& women [implied] by the age of ten. Is this the same xian home you asked to be adopted out of & into a black family from? Is this the same xian home that had a wife abuser [your claim] & that you were *born again[tm]* at the age of five? Is this the same xian home that gave you such a low self esteem you must engage in puffery to try & impress others, for you know yourself to well? Is this the same xian home that taught you it was not a problem if you lied, in spite of what the xian grimorie says about that? Or did you turn out sour in spite of a xian home? at a very young age. What I noticed as a youngster was more on the line of Christianity calling on us to be better, nicer, more talented, always MORE.

& yet, you never learned the lesson, or you are making things up again. Evidently you aren’t interested in a faith that expects and encourages you to G R O W.

If growing leads to becoming like you, I can understand why no one would want to follow such a faith. Can’t say as how I blame them. But I have spent my last 50 years studying WHY we believe in Christ. We aren’t stupid. There are MANY educated Christians in MANY

We, one of those sweeping generalizations you dislike so much, when others make them. Or do you think that by saying we, that some of the intelligence of others will magically be transferred to you? professions, such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, programmers, research scientists.

& like you, porn writers of unreknown, an author no publisher seems to have heard of, library’s can’t find, etc. Believing in something that flies in the face of experience, Only means you have had a very dull life. I know few Christians who can’t tell you about the miracles they’ve experienced.

Well now, I am sure that because they & you can not tell the difference between a good break at the right time & fantasy has nothing to do with your unfounded claims. Until you provide evidence, you are just dribbling shit from both ends. evidence, and common sense must take a huge amount of faith… doesn’t it? I know MANY Christians who have advanced educations. Logic and belief are NOT opposites.

But do they know you, & more important, are they willing to admit to it publicly? jw The term is "gullible".

Worse than that, but there are small animals within a thousand to one million miles of here, so I should not print them out. walksalone who has longs since known jw can not provide evidence but simply make various appeals hoping someone will be stupid enough to believe them. — The Hadith Qudsi 6 The first of people against whom judgment will be pronounced on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who died a martyr. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them. The Almighty will say: And what did you do about them? He will say: I fought for you until I died a martyr. He will say: You have lied – you did but fight that it might be said [of you]: He is courageous. And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.

Response:

Evolution is a fact. The world is filled with dumb monkeys.

…and the monkey speaks! You got it half right.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -x-no-archive: yes copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the group, folks) God is Faithful The problem with all this is, how does an individual muster up enough faith to believe the whole thing in the first place? Having been raised in a Christian home, I was exposed to Christianity at a very young age. What I noticed as a youngster was more on the line of Christianity calling on us to be better, nicer, more talented, always MORE. Evidently you aren’t interested in a faith that expects and encourages you to G R O W.

I *AM* interested in your faith… that’s why I’m here. Just not interested in participating in it. But I have spent my last 50 years studying WHY we believe in Christ. We aren’t stupid. There are MANY educated Christians in MANY professions, such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, programmers, research scientists.

I don’t doubt that… in fact, I know it to be true. My background is similar to the one you’ve described for yourself. I know several intelligent, thinking christians myself… in fact, most of my friends and family call themselves "christian"… That’s why they’re so much fun to talk to about this issue. The point at which we break down is when I simply ask, "why?" What would compel a person to believe something like that? Which is not to ask why one would WANT to believe it… I think the benefits from such belief are evident. But how could you take an honest look around you and believe such a thing? That’s where I just don’t get it. And most of the time when the conversation breaks down to this pivotal point, people start getting pissed off and calling names, or don’t have anything substantive to say… at least so far in my experience. Believing in something that flies in the face of experience, Only means you have had a very dull life. I know few Christians who can’t tell you about the miracles they’ve experienced.

I don’t doubt that. I can see how people might tend to call really cool events "miracles"… I would probably just chalk it up to a beneficial turn of events. All a matter of perspective, I suppose. evidence, and common sense must take a huge amount of faith… doesn’t it? I know MANY Christians who have advanced educations. Logic and belief are NOT opposites.

I agree.

Response:

God is Faithful God is a myth. There is no "god".

Its ok. You claim to be related to dumb monkeys and you prove it above. Evolution is a fact. The world is filled with dumb monkeys.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – God is Faithful God is a myth. There is no "god". Its ok. You claim to be related to dumb monkeys and you prove it above. Evolution is a fact. The world is filled with dumb monkeys.

So it is a fact that you also are a dumb monkey? I don’t speak animal so I hope you can read the above.

Response:

God is Faithful

The problem with all this is, how does an individual muster up enough faith to believe the whole thing in the first place? Believing in something that flies in the face of experience, evidence, and common sense must take a huge amount of faith… doesn’t it?

Response:

The term is "gullible". — Stephen Bayzik

Response:

God is Faithful

God is a myth. There is no "god".

Response:

Salvation is from God only;

And gawd doesn’t exist, as can be clearly proven. Of course one has to think to understand this, so fundies like I-know-SHIT have no chance. — Regards Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig

Response:

. While we are told in Scripture that faith is actually the fruit of the Holy Spirit

Probably correct in that in Fundamentalist American Christianity it is rotten to its fascist little core

Response:

The Holy Spirit left the people you promote decades ago

Response:

God is Faithful "God is faithful by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of Jesus Christ our Lord." I Cor 1:9 Many Christians have problems with the idea of "faith". While we are told in Scripture that faith is actually the fruit of the Holy Spirit(Gal 5 :22 ). And in Gal 2:20 were are told that it is by faith OF the Son of God that we are to live. We are also told "By grace(God’s unmerited favor giving us the power to do what we ourselves cannot do) are ye saved through faith(not our own doing but by the Spirit of God); and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph 2:8-9 There are many false religions calling themselves Christian who violate, mostly through ignorance, this concept of "faith". Most of these teach that is by one’s own faith in their faith they are saved and kept and this is a great lie. Salvation is from God only; a free gift for all those who come to Him freely seeking His already purchased forgivenesss by the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. This misunderstanding of "faith" has led many to slide away from God’s calling thinking that they cannot be saved because they just cannot conjure up enough "faith" on their own to do the job.

Response:

– Pastor Dave' a rabid fundamentalist fanaticism–is it psychosis?

admin — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: Or like John, he also worries when people threaten his life, but can’t be concerned when people condemn all non-catholics to death…

I can clarify this issue once and for all. Cindy is not Suzanne. Cindy is my daughter and has never even met Suzanne, nor have I. Neither one of us have ever talked with her in person. We don’t even live in the same part of the country as Suzanne. It is not unusual to have Christians of like minds or gifts when the Holy Spirit is involved. Donna – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – JESUS IS THE ROCK God doesn’t call the qualified; He qualifies the called

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: Or like John, he also worries when people threaten his life, but can’t be concerned when people condemn all non-catholics to death… I can clarify this issue once and for all. Cindy is not Suzanne. Cindy is my daughter and has never even met Suzanne, nor have I. Neither one of us have ever talked with her in person. We don’t even live in the same part of the country as Suzanne. It is not unusual to have Christians of like minds or gifts when the Holy Spirit is involved.

It is unusual to be identified with such a complete idiot as Susanne.

Response:

Be careful here Alan, as there have been many down through history that most would put into the category of what they consider idiots that have proved to be otherwise; they were the wisemen instead. And the ones who come out closer to being an idiot are the very ones who called the wise men idiots to begin with. The adage "put brain in gear before engaging mouth" might be appropriate here. Donna

Response:

"But I alone am doltish and rustic. [I have nothing that I want to do. I am so muddled and oafish that I appear to know nothing at all.

I couldn't have said it better Dolt. Sometimes you post the strangest things. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -Thus the text says, 'doltish and rustic.'] I alone wish to be different from others and so value drawing sustenance from the mother. ['Drawing sustenance from the mother' refers to the root of life the Dao {ie. the Judaeo-Christian 7th day Sabbath (Torah) based Kabbalah vMeme / Moment Homoiotic Noumenon}. Everyone foresakes the roots from which the common folk draw sustenance and instead values blossoms [hua] decorating the branch tips [superficial frivolity]. Thus the text says, ‘I alone wish to be different from others.’]" [Lao Tzu's (c 604 BCE) Dao (the way) Te (of virtue) Ching (and causality) with commentary by Wang Bi (226-229 CE) as #20 - Left without Language/ Different From the Vulgar] - dolf There’s no need for pain killers Dolt. Noone will notice. QOLON NOTE: As you read further the text says, "There is no greater disaster than having no viable opponent. If one has no viable opponent, he will soon lose my [the Laozi's] treasures" which means that you ought not under-estimate your opponent.

There’s no greater disaster than not being viable. It isn’t necessary to find an opponent. They tend to find you. If one doesn’t receive an apology from them for past impugnity then this their reputed present statement is untrue: "Every human being deserves our reverence and love, from the beginning to the end of the continuum of

life." The introductory sentence doesn’t make much sense but the quote isn’t too bad. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And they will lose the three treasures: {ie. kindness, frugality and no presumption that one is first among all under Heaven}. Also, the Dao also says, "My words are very easy to understand, very easy to practice, yet none among all under Heaven can understand them, and none can practice them." Meaning according to the interpretation given by Wang Bi (226-249 CE): "You can understand them without leaving your gate or peering out your window. Thus the text says they ‘are easy to understand.’ You can fulfill them without taking deliberate action. Thus the text says they are ‘very easy to practice.’ But people are deluded by greed, so the text says, ‘none… can understand them,’ and people are befuddled by honor and reward, so the text says, ‘none can practice them.’ My words have a progenitor, and my undertakings have a sovereign. ‘Progenitor’ refers to the progenitor of the myriad of things, and ’sovereign’ refers to the master of the myriad affairs. It is just because there is no understanding of this that they do not understand me. Because his words have this progenitor and his undertakings have this sovereign, if there were people who understood how this is so, they could not help but understand him. As long as those who understand me are rare, someone like me is precious." [#70 - Difficulty in Knowing How/ Difficult to Understand] KangaRu / Grapple – The Torah’s 10 Commandments (1550 BCE) & Tao Te Ching (c. 604 BCE) A brief comment needs to be made on the perspective concerning the genre of literature known as the Torah (eg. Eden as tributary to 4 rivers (Pishon / Ganges {fish hook} in India, Gihon {valley of Grace}, Tigris {an arrow}, Euphrates {that makes fruitful}) to which Providence is geo-centrically mapped as Genesis) and it’s consistency with the orient worldview and relation to the biblical ruler for how the 10 Commandments should be numbered. The Theory of Number is actually derived from the 10 Commandments as decalogue (ie. things received), thus you’ll find the conception of the individual laws follows the sequence of number and their philosophical and chronological conception of number. In relation to the Supernal attribution of God as conveyed by the first three Commandments: #1 = Nature contains Nature {ie. The God who took Israel {he that sees God; he that prevails with God} out of the House of Bondage–Egypt {that troubles or oppresses; anguish}} #2 = Nature rejoices in its Nature {ie. Having no likeness preceeding} #3 = Nature surmounts Nature {ie. Who is neither sought nor spoken of in vanity} #58 – Political Reversal/ Adaptation to Change {Transforming Nature} #41 – Playing with Reversal/ Sameness in Difference {Autonomous Nature} the Chinese Philosopher Wang Bi (226-249 CE) equates this with the Dao that cannot be described in language, cannot be named and is unchangeable: "The way things come into existence and efficacy [gong] comes about is that things arise from the formless [wuxing] and efficacy emanates from the nameless [wuming]. The formless and the nameless [the Dao] is the progenitor of the myriad things. It is neither warm nor cool and makes neither the note gong nor the note shang [ie. it is not subject to the sense of touch or that of hearing]. You might listen for it, but it is impossible to get a sense of its sound; you might look for it, but it is impossible to get a sense of its appearance; you might try to understand what it is like, but it is impossible to get it in terms of understanding; or you might taste it, but it is impossible to get it in terms of flavour." [p 30] — #4 = Nature amended in its Nature {Nature contains Nature} Remember the Sabbath? #69 – Profound Use/ The Function of the Mysterious #5 = Act of Nature {Nature rejoices in its Nature} Honor Parents #9 – The Inconstancy of Achievement/ Practising Placidity #6 = Form of Nature {Nature surmounts Nature} No Murder #32 – Natural Guide/ The Virtue of Holiness #7 = Engendering Nature {Nature amended in its Nature} Avoid (Spiritual) Adultery #20 – Left without Language/ Different From the Vulgar #8 = Transforming Nature {Act of Nature} Don’t Steal #61 – Virtuosity at Using ‘Beneath’/ The Virtue of Humility #9 = Autonomous Nature {Form of Nature} Bear No False Witness #73 – Employing Deeming/ Daring to Act #10 = Totality of Nature {Engendering Nature} Do Not Covet #35 – Great Guiding Signs?/ The Virtue of Benevolence Number entries for the Judaeo-Christian 7th day Sabbath (Torah) based Kabbalah vMeme / Moment Homoiotic Noumenon are keyed to: Lao Tzu’s (b. 604 BCE) TAO (the way) TE (of virtue) CHING (& causality). For example, if I might further quote ‘#69 – Profound Use/ The Function of the Mysterious’ from Lao Tzu’s Tao-Te-Ching as interpreted by Wang Bi (226-249 CE) and translated by Richard Lynn

From Skepticism To Worship: An Atheist's Testimony

admin — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – alt.atheism: [piggybacking] FROM SKEPTICISM TO WORSHIP by A.S.A. Jones MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY I was a devout atheist for over twenty years. What more proof do we need that the OP was merely a theist who was denying his beliefs? One can’t "devoutly" lack belief in something, moron.

The morons can’t grasp that anybody might have a position other than the one they assign to us. In spite the fact that it gets acrimonious when they tell us what our POV "really" is. Because they can’t step aside from their belief that their deity exists, and insist on defining everybody else as though it were as real for us as it is for them. Even though that presumption doesn’t even apply to us (or even to the believers in other "false" gods).

Response:

FROM SKEPTICISM TO WORSHIP

You seem reluctant to define yourself. And "spirituality" just doesn’t cut it. It’s about as definitive as a low fog. BAM

Response:

alt.atheism: [piggybacking] FROM SKEPTICISM TO WORSHIP by A.S.A. Jones MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY I was a devout atheist for over twenty years.

What more proof do we need that the OP was merely a theist who was denying his beliefs? One can’t "devoutly" lack belief in something, moron. — "Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its side." – Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987 (random sig, produced by SigChanger) rukbat at verizon dot net

Response:

| RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES THE GOD OF MY YOUTH as it should at any stage in ones life. | RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES MY COMPASSION FOR OTHERS sorry to here that since rational thought is not related to compassion for others. | RATIONAL THOUGHT TURNS FROM SCIENCE TO PHILOSOPHY one cannot turn from one for the other as philosophy is the explicit application of rational thought in its highest form. | MY PHILOSOPHY TURNS ANTI-CHRISTIAN looks as if there was an indication at this point in your life that you would eventually "turn christian". the relationship, or tendency trend, is that the more "anti" one is against a thing, the more one feels identified by or with that thing. | THE PARADOX OF BIBLICAL JABBERWOCKY yes, it does pre-package "meaning of life" pretty well (any religion does or it will fail)…for those who cannot resolve meaning and purpose in life without a diety. this paradox is how converts are made…"don’t look at the details – we’ll endoctrinate you later". the problems are in the details. as you now know, only jesus saves…so followers of other religions are damned. there are other problems as with you are probably familiar. as i have always maintained, of what value is god to me? if a thing be imperceptable and have no effect (interaction, benefit, consequence) on me, then it does not matter. god offers no evidence of intention to interact or reveal herself to me. this is not restricted to me but inclusive of all. so without interaction, how can any religion be formed where very specific guidelines of living and meaning and purpose be a true indication of god’s intent for human kind? no religion can. so your "meaning" in life is the value in life held by someone else’s estimation and passed on to you. i have meaning and purpose and without the need for a "god" to prescribe it to me. the best and only message i take to heart are one of the two ultimate commandments jesus gave when queried about which of all the commandments were greatest. to love the lord your god and have none else before him…and love your neighbor as you would love yourself. since i’m an atheist, you can safely assume to which commandment i refer in singularity. the thing is, i held that in highest esteem in my own character before i read it in a bible. to me, that was just part of the social contract in which we humans find ourselves. i don’t dispute that religion can be a very powerfully good influence on how people interact with one another…just that those who need that "message" have not taken the time for introspection to find what is important to them in life…and more importantly society as a whole. but as people are wont to do, most prefer the "pre-packaged" option. | I SEE IT!

Response:

Very inspiring testimony, Jones. I will follow your posts closely; this one was very enlighting. Keep it up! Andre – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – FROM SKEPTICISM TO WORSHIP by A.S.A. Jones MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY I was a devout atheist for over twenty years. In July of 1998, I finally managed to see the biblical truths that had managed to elude me. The following is an account of how I went from hardcore skepticism to hardcore worship of the Savior, Jesus Christ. RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES THE GOD OF MY YOUTH I was raised a Roman Catholic in a home where the name of Jesus Christ and God was never mentioned. I was encouraged to attend catechism and church every weekend, but the concept of God was never made completely real to me. I entertained the notion as any child would, but I just wasn’t into the imaginary friend scene and by the time I was thirteen, I had concluded that God was merely a vicious adult version of the Easter bunny. I abandoned the lie, informed my upset parents that I would no longer be attending church, and began seeking truth. In the absence of a religious belief to answer life’s questions, I turned my mental energy to science. Science had an awesome track record of solving many problems and its resulting technology had provided tangible benefits to all of mankind. Science was the answer! I reasoned that if we could educate our populations and continue to make advances in medicine, agriculture and energy production, we would one day have the mythical Eden as our reality. I threw myself into my studies, determined to become a scientific messiah who would one day deliver people from the bondage of disease. At the age of sixteen, my IQ and my grades made me eligible for my high school’s early release program and I began my studies in biology and chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh. RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES MY COMPASSION FOR OTHERS I graduated from college with high honors and my prized science degree, but I had lost any motivation to apply that knowledge. I recalled staring at a swarming mass of termites one sunny day, thinking that, from a comparative distance, there was little difference between them and us. I smashed a few dozen with my shoe and ground them into the dirt. What did it matter if these died? What did it matter if they all died? People died every day. The end result would always be death for both the individuals and, eventually, the species. Humanity had become nothing more to me than an organized network of molecules and enzymes. I viewed people as mere organisms going through their daily routines of metabolizing nutrients and expelling wastes, ovulating their eggs and ejaculating their semen. I knew the psychology of humans almost as well as their anatomies. The hidden things that pulled them this way and that were very evident to me. They were like guinea pigs, only more predictable, and my chief form of entertainment was to see how skillfully I could manipulate them. I knew that I was supposed to care about them, but I didn’t. I couldn’t. If mankind’s goal was to alleviate its own suffering, a bullet to the head was more efficient and made more sense in my thinking than screwing around with medication or disease control. What was the point of prolonging any one life? What difference did it make if a girl didn’t live to marry or her mother live to see it? Of what value were temporary emotional experiences? They were simply the biochemistry of the brain reacting to sensory input and, upon that individual’s death, any remaining memory of that experience would be thrown away along with the person who had experienced it. My extreme point of view had reduced people into throwaway metabolic units; I had become as cold and indifferent as the logic that I exalted. If my education would benefit anyone, it would benefit me. I passed up an offer of a low paying research position for a secure and higher paying job in a chemistry lab. My brain rotted there for 40 hours a week for 10 years. RATIONAL THOUGHT TURNS FROM SCIENCE TO PHILOSOPHY Science had done nothing to answer the questions that raged in my head. Why should I care? How much should I care? Should I care at all? What is my purpose in life? Is there a purpose? How can I love people? Should I love people? Which people should I love? How can I forgive people? Should I forgive people? Have I done what is right? Have I done what is wrong? Is there a right or a wrong? I turned to philosophy. I started with Jean-Paul Sartre’s "Being and Nothingness". This man had won a Nobel Prize for basically taking white and logically demonstrating how it was really black. I tried several other atheist philosophers who tried to assign meaning to a life created by chance and I decided that they were all full of crap. If our life is the result of randomness and chance, it is meaningless, no matter how we try to convince ourselves otherwise. That was fine with me. I was prepared to live my life by this truth and discovered that the prospect of a life without meaning can be a very freeing experience. I set out to take advantage of moral relativism and effectively destroyed any of my remaining conscience. Friends, let me tell you, I fell far, far away, but I didn’t know it. I busied myself with one diversion after another, trying to fill my life with meaningless activity in order to forget how meaningless it was. In my desperation, I grew self-righteous and indignant. I was secretly envious of the morons who seemed blissfully unaware of their own meaninglessness. I wanted to shake them awake and get them to see how worthless their lives really were. MY PHILOSOPHY TURNS ANTI-CHRISTIAN The worst idiots were the Christians. I hated them because, in their ignorance of naturalism, they failed to see that there was no reason for the rest of the world to believe in their god, live by their standards or give a damn about what they had to say, yet there they were, acting as if they had a copyright on truth. Their pretentiousness sickened me, despite my being equally pretentious toward them. After all, I was justified in my pretentiousness! At least I could give logical reasons for not believing in the supernatural. I would challenge them to give reasons for believing in something that couldn’t be seen and they would reply, "You can’t see the wind but it’s there." I would then try to explain to them that wind was created by differences in pressure and that there was plenty of scientific proof for the existence of wind but none for their god. Even the most intelligent Christians I knew had a difficult time articulating their reason for faith. Most of the explanations I heard rested on the Bible’s authority. "The Bible says… the Bible says… the Bible says." Who cared what the Bible said? I certainly didn’t. "It’s all a bunch of made up, superstitious baloney. Can’t you see?" and I would then go into pagan origins, etc., and try to demonstrate that Jesus was a manufactured myth. I ended up knowing the Bible inside and out just to be able to debate against it. My anti-Christian arguments became my ultimate diversion to a hopeless life. I learned that religious debate wasn’t as much about truth as it was about language and presentation. I began seeing flaws in my own logic while trying to demonstrate certain instances of Biblical errancy, but that didn’t keep me on the bench. To justify my desire to destroy Christianity, I had to find reasons to discredit it. I railed against its hypocrisy, the behavior of its followers, the wars fought in its name and I questioned the motives of its bloody god and the religion’s effective outcome. In short, I began seeing it as the supreme evil, despite the fact that my own view of moral relativism did not permit a logical defense of the concept of evil. THE PARADOX OF BIBLICAL JABBERWOCKY One night, I was very tired and alone in my study. I didn’t reach, as I usually did, for a book of religious argument. I grabbed Lewis Carroll’s "Through The Looking Glass", plopped myself down in a comfy chair and sleepily began reading. I skimmed through the pages and stopped at Humpty Dumpty’s explanation of ‘Jabberwocky’ to Alice. A thought occurred to me that if I were to read ‘Jabberwocky’ the same way I read the bible, it wouldn’t make any sense at all. I put Carroll’s book aside, folded my hands and stared at the wall, lost in thought. The Bible didn’t make sense to me. But why did it make sense to others? What were they seeing that I didn’t? Did they so desperately want there to be a God that they had deluded themselves into thinking that there was one? It was New Year’s Day, 1998. I made a resolution to read the entire Bible again, only this time I was going to read it as I would poetry or fiction, and not as a proposal of fact. In the months that followed, I kept my resolution and I began noticing a change in my way of interpreting the Bible. Intellectually, I found that my mind could logically accept two very different interpretations of almost everything I was reading. One interpretation of any verse or passage would render the whole story as nonsensical. But the other interpretation allowed the whole story to make sense. If my mind was capable of accepting interpretations that allowed the whole book to make sense, then what was it in me that wanted it not to make sense? This book was reading me as surely as I was reading it. Every time I found fault with its god, I ended up finding a fault of my own. What was I doing when I condemned this god for commanding Moses to kill? Was I arrogantly making my

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – FROM SKEPTICISM TO WORSHIP by A.S.A. Jones MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY I was a devout atheist for over twenty years. In July of 1998, I finally managed to see the biblical truths that had managed to elude me. The following is an account of how I went from hardcore skepticism to hardcore worship of the Savior, Jesus Christ. So you were a sane, rational person for 20 years and one day you went barmy. It happens. Thousands of people are normal until one day they start displaying psychotic simptoms, suffering delusions, hallucinations, all sort of horrible things. There is a wide range of antipsychotics that can help you. Dont be ashamed, dont be afraid to consult your doctor. It is possible that you can go back to being sane again.

My impresstion from his article is that he wasn’t a sane and rational person – he was unhappy and looking for something to fill what he perceived as a void

Response:

FROM SKEPTICISM TO WORSHIP by A.S.S. Jones MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY I was a devout atheist for over twenty years. In July of 1998, I finally managed to see the biblical truths that had managed to elude me.

Apparently, an early stage of senility set in. The following is an account of how I went from hardcore skepticism to hardcore worship of the Savior, Jesus Christ.

Why should I place any importance on your personal belief systems. What is that to me? RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES THE GOD OF MY YOUTH

Imagine that, being rational! A terrible thing to happen, isn’t it? I was raised a Roman Catholic in a home where the name of Jesus Christ and God was never mentioned.

Yeah, probably what happened instead is that all your folks talked about was Mary and the magic God cookies. I was encouraged to attend catechism and church every weekend, but the concept of God was never made completely real to me.

Yeah, probably it was all just too irrational? I entertained the notion as any child would, but I just wasn’t into the imaginary friend scene and by the time I was thirteen,

Yeah, probably at age thirteen, your real friends were more important than any imaginary ones. I had concluded that God was merely a vicious adult version of the Easter bunny.

Or maybe a demonic cross between Freddy Krueger and Santa Claus. I abandoned the lie, informed my upset parents that I would no longer be attending church, and began seeking truth.

Why did you begin seeking truth? There was nothing to seek, unless you were already disconnected from reality. In the absence of a religious belief to answer life’s questions, I turned my mental energy to science.

Huh? Most teenagers would have been turning their mental energies to the social scene and the opposite sex. You, instead were nerding around in a pile of books. You should have been out working or playing football! Science had an awesome track record of solving many problems and its resulting technology had provided tangible benefits to all of mankind. Science was the answer! I reasoned that if we could educate our populations and continue to make advances in medicine, agriculture and energy production, we would one day have the mythical Eden as our reality.

That’s not the purpose of science, you moron. Instead of thinking crap, you should have been out getting laid.

Response:

Why is it there has never been any evidence that any of these ex-atheists were ever atheists. They all seem to equate their initial state of insecure confusion with being an atheists. You NEVER see a vocal atheists who understands why atheism is the rational sequitur, later lose that understanding and become religious.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – FROM SKEPTICISM TO WORSHIP by A.S.A. Jones MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY I was a devout atheist for over twenty years. In July of 1998, I finally managed to see the biblical truths that had managed to elude me. The following is an account of how I went from hardcore skepticism to hardcore worship of the Savior, Jesus Christ. Why is it there has never been any evidence that any of these ex-atheists were ever atheists. They all seem to equate their initial state of insecure confusion with being an atheists. You NEVER see a vocal atheists who understands why atheism is the rational sequitur, later lose that understanding and become religious.

There have been a few. You can recognise them because unlike liars like the poster is citing, they actually understand what an atheist is, also what and why an atheist doesn’t fing convincing.

Response:

on 08 Nov 2004 in alt.atheism, Roger Andrews dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Imagine someone who stands and watches and does nothing to intervene when little girls are sawed in half from the crotch downward (so the blood runs to their heads so they stay conscious for the longest possible time) Something the American left, and leftists in general allow to happen today, because they refuse to allow capital punishment to be used against the people that engage in such acts. A better punishment would be a life term in solitary confinment. What could be worse for an unenlightened persons than to be alone with his/her thoughts for the rest of their lives?

Being alone with your imaginary friends comes to mind. — Vic Sagerquist aa#2011 Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree? Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you’re going to be as smart as God. We can’t have that." [Frank Zappa]

Response:

So you were a sane, rational person for 20 years and one day you went barmy. It happens. Thousands of people are normal until one day they start displaying psychotic simptoms, suffering delusions, hallucinations, all sort of horrible things. There is a wide range of antipsychotics that can help you. Dont be ashamed, dont be afraid to consult your doctor. It is possible that you can go back to being sane again. regards Milan

Response:

Something the American left, and leftists in general allow to happen today, because they refuse to allow capital punishment to be used against the people that engage in such acts.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – wrote Please stop spamming alt.politics.bush. The only one who could be close to be considered spamming is you. Oh yeah sure Sparky. Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t make them a spammer.

Dana is an insane, email morphing, right wing, neo nazi troll…don’t let it get to you!!

Response:

FROM SKEPTICISM TO WORSHIP by A.S.A. Jones MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY I was a devout atheist for over twenty years.

Do you realize that this bullshit is not new? Atheists have had to endure this particular lie from Christian assholes forever. You xians are always *claiming to be reformed atheists. Bull. Just another liar-for-christ. jwk

Response:

on 07 Nov 2004 in alt.atheism, ~ DlVIDED STATES OF AMERlCA ~ dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "~ DlVIDED STATES OF AMERlCA ~" Please stop spamming alt.politics.bush. The only one who could be close to be considered spamming is you. Oh yeah sure Sparky. Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t make them a spammer.

If you’re not a spammer, why didn’t you trim the crap you were not responding to instead of re-posting all 266 lines three times? Just curious. — Vic Sagerquist aa#2011 Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree? Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you’re going to be as smart as God. We can’t have that." [Frank Zappa]

Response:

Imagine someone who stands and watches and does nothing to intervene when little girls are sawed in half from the crotch downward (so the blood runs to their heads so they stay conscious for the longest possible time) Something the American left, and leftists in general allow to happen today, because they refuse to allow capital punishment to be used against the people that engage in such acts.

A better punishment would be a life term in solitary confinment. What could be worse for an unenlightened persons than to be alone with his/her thoughts for the rest of their lives? Roger

Response:

Please stop spamming alt.politics.bush. The only one who could be close to be considered spamming is you.

Oh yeah sure Sparky. Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t make them a spammer. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -This is a newsgroup devoted to discussing the atrocities, war crimes & injustices committed by George W. Bush. I thank you in advance for your cooperation. FROM SKEPTICISM TO WORSHIP by A.S.A. Jones MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY I was a devout atheist for over twenty years. In July of 1998, I finally managed to see the biblical truths that had managed to elude me. The following is an account of how I went from hardcore skepticism to hardcore worship of the Savior, Jesus Christ. RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES THE GOD OF MY YOUTH I was raised a Roman Catholic in a home where the name of Jesus Christ and God was never mentioned. I was encouraged to attend catechism and church every weekend, but the concept of God was never made completely real to me. I entertained the notion as any child would, but I just wasn’t into the imaginary friend scene and by the time I was thirteen, I had concluded that God was merely a vicious adult version of the Easter bunny. I abandoned the lie, informed my upset parents that I would no longer be attending church, and began seeking truth. In the absence of a religious belief to answer life’s questions, I turned my mental energy to science. Science had an awesome track record of solving many problems and its resulting technology had provided tangible benefits to all of mankind. Science was the answer! I reasoned that if we could educate our populations and continue to make advances in medicine, agriculture and energy production, we would one day have the mythical Eden as our reality. I threw myself into my studies, determined to become a scientific messiah who would one day deliver people from the bondage of disease. At the age of sixteen, my IQ and my grades made me eligible for my high school’s early release program and I began my studies in biology and chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh. RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES MY COMPASSION FOR OTHERS I graduated from college with high honors and my prized science degree, but I had lost any motivation to apply that knowledge. I recalled staring at a swarming mass of termites one sunny day, thinking that, from a comparative distance, there was little difference between them and us. I smashed a few dozen with my shoe and ground them into the dirt. What did it matter if these died? What did it matter if they all died? People died every day. The end result would always be death for both the individuals and, eventually, the species. Humanity had become nothing more to me than an organized network of molecules and enzymes. I viewed people as mere organisms going through their daily routines of metabolizing nutrients and expelling wastes, ovulating their eggs and ejaculating their semen. I knew the psychology of humans almost as well as their anatomies. The hidden things that pulled them this way and that were very evident to me. They were like guinea pigs, only more predictable, and my chief form of entertainment was to see how skillfully I could manipulate them. I knew that I was supposed to care about them, but I didn’t. I couldn’t. If mankind’s goal was to alleviate its own suffering, a bullet to the head was more efficient and made more sense in my thinking than screwing around with medication or disease control. What was the point of prolonging any one life? What difference did it make if a girl didn’t live to marry or her mother live to see it? Of what value were temporary emotional experiences? They were simply the biochemistry of the brain reacting to sensory input and, upon that individual’s death, any remaining memory of that experience would be thrown away along with the person who had experienced it. My extreme point of view had reduced people into throwaway metabolic units; I had become as cold and indifferent as the logic that I exalted. If my education would benefit anyone, it would benefit me. I passed up an offer of a low paying research position for a secure and higher paying job in a chemistry lab. My brain rotted there for 40 hours a week for 10 years. RATIONAL THOUGHT TURNS FROM SCIENCE TO PHILOSOPHY Science had done nothing to answer the questions that raged in my head. Why should I care? How much should I care? Should I care at all? What is my purpose in life? Is there a purpose? How can I love people? Should I love people? Which people should I love? How can I forgive people? Should I forgive people? Have I done what is right? Have I done what is wrong? Is there a right or a wrong? I turned to philosophy. I started with Jean-Paul Sartre’s "Being and Nothingness". This man had won a Nobel Prize for basically taking white and logically demonstrating how it was really black. I tried several other atheist philosophers who tried to assign meaning to a life created by chance and I decided that they were all full of crap. If our life is the result of randomness and chance, it is meaningless, no matter how we try to convince ourselves otherwise. That was fine with me. I was prepared to live my life by this truth and discovered that the prospect of a life without meaning can be a very freeing experience. I set out to take advantage of moral relativism and effectively destroyed any of my remaining conscience. Friends, let me tell you, I fell far, far away, but I didn’t know it. I busied myself with one diversion after another, trying to fill my life with meaningless activity in order to forget how meaningless it was. In my desperation, I grew self-righteous and indignant. I was secretly envious of the morons who seemed blissfully unaware of their own meaninglessness. I wanted to shake them awake and get them to see how worthless their lives really were. MY PHILOSOPHY TURNS ANTI-CHRISTIAN The worst idiots were the Christians. I hated them because, in their ignorance of naturalism, they failed to see that there was no reason for the rest of the world to believe in their god, live by their standards or give a damn about what they had to say, yet there they were, acting as if they had a copyright on truth. Their pretentiousness sickened me, despite my being equally pretentious toward them. After all, I was justified in my pretentiousness! At least I could give logical reasons for not believing in the supernatural. I would challenge them to give reasons for believing in something that couldn’t be seen and they would reply, "You can’t see the wind but it’s there." I would then try to explain to them that wind was created by differences in pressure and that there was plenty of scientific proof for the existence of wind but none for their god. Even the most intelligent Christians I knew had a difficult time articulating their reason for faith. Most of the explanations I heard rested on the Bible’s authority. "The Bible says… the Bible says… the Bible says." Who cared what the Bible said? I certainly didn’t. "It’s all a bunch of made up, superstitious baloney. Can’t you see?" and I would then go into pagan origins, etc., and try to demonstrate that Jesus was a manufactured myth. I ended up knowing the Bible inside and out just to be able to debate against it. My anti-Christian arguments became my ultimate diversion to a hopeless life. I learned that religious debate wasn’t as much about truth as it was about language and presentation. I began seeing flaws in my own logic while trying to demonstrate certain instances of Biblical errancy, but that didn’t keep me on the bench. To justify my desire to destroy Christianity, I had to find reasons to discredit it. I railed against its hypocrisy, the behavior of its followers, the wars fought in its name and I questioned the motives of its bloody god and the religion’s effective outcome. In short, I began seeing it as the supreme evil, despite the fact that my own view of moral relativism did not permit a logical defense of the concept of evil. THE PARADOX OF BIBLICAL JABBERWOCKY One night, I was very tired and alone in my study. I didn’t reach, as I usually did, for a book of religious argument. I grabbed Lewis Carroll’s "Through The Looking Glass", plopped myself down in a comfy chair and sleepily began reading. I skimmed through the pages and stopped at Humpty Dumpty’s explanation of ‘Jabberwocky’ to Alice. A thought occurred to me that if I were to read ‘Jabberwocky’ the same way I read the bible, it wouldn’t make any sense at all. I put Carroll’s book aside, folded my hands and stared at the wall, lost in thought. The Bible didn’t make sense to me. But why did it make sense to others? What were they seeing that I didn’t? Did they so desperately want there to be a God that they had deluded themselves into thinking that there was one? It was New Year’s Day, 1998. I made a resolution to read the entire Bible again, only this time I was going to read it as I would poetry or fiction, and not as a proposal of fact. In the months that followed, I kept my resolution and I began noticing a change in my way of interpreting the Bible. Intellectually, I found that my mind could logically accept two very different interpretations of

Response:

Imagine someone who stands and watches and does nothing to intervene when little girls are sawed in half from the crotch downward (so the blood runs to their heads so they stay conscious for the longest possible time) as they did in the Middle Ages. Things like this happen around the world every minute of every day. A moral man recognizes that there is NO moral justification for inaction when such an act could be prevented, which would be possible to an omniscient and omnipotent God. It would also be incumbent upon any omnipotent, omniscient, and good (OOG) God to intervene in this case, yet there is no intervention. Therefore such a God does not exist. This is the Existence of Evil argument against the existence of an OOG god, and it is conclusive for anyone with moral backbone. You can escape it only by compromising either your logical thinking or your moral integrity. You have therefore done one or the other, even though as a human you are theoretically capable of better. You are a cretin, however you reckon it, not withstanding all your narcissistic and fatuous imaginings.

Response:

Please stop spamming alt.politics.bush.

The only one who could be close to be considered spamming is you. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is a newsgroup devoted to discussing the atrocities, war crimes & injustices committed by George W. Bush. I thank you in advance for your cooperation. FROM SKEPTICISM TO WORSHIP by A.S.A. Jones MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY I was a devout atheist for over twenty years. In July of 1998, I finally managed to see the biblical truths that had managed to elude me. The following is an account of how I went from hardcore skepticism to hardcore worship of the Savior, Jesus Christ. RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES THE GOD OF MY YOUTH I was raised a Roman Catholic in a home where the name of Jesus Christ and God was never mentioned. I was encouraged to attend catechism and church every weekend, but the concept of God was never made completely real to me. I entertained the notion as any child would, but I just wasn’t into the imaginary friend scene and by the time I was thirteen, I had concluded that God was merely a vicious adult version of the Easter bunny. I abandoned the lie, informed my upset parents that I would no longer be attending church, and began seeking truth. In the absence of a religious belief to answer life’s questions, I turned my mental energy to science. Science had an awesome track record of solving many problems and its resulting technology had provided tangible benefits to all of mankind. Science was the answer! I reasoned that if we could educate our populations and continue to make advances in medicine, agriculture and energy production, we would one day have the mythical Eden as our reality. I threw myself into my studies, determined to become a scientific messiah who would one day deliver people from the bondage of disease. At the age of sixteen, my IQ and my grades made me eligible for my high school’s early release program and I began my studies in biology and chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh. RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES MY COMPASSION FOR OTHERS I graduated from college with high honors and my prized science degree, but I had lost any motivation to apply that knowledge. I recalled staring at a swarming mass of termites one sunny day, thinking that, from a comparative distance, there was little difference between them and us. I smashed a few dozen with my shoe and ground them into the dirt. What did it matter if these died? What did it matter if they all died? People died every day. The end result would always be death for both the individuals and, eventually, the species. Humanity had become nothing more to me than an organized network of molecules and enzymes. I viewed people as mere organisms going through their daily routines of metabolizing nutrients and expelling wastes, ovulating their eggs and ejaculating their semen. I knew the psychology of humans almost as well as their anatomies. The hidden things that pulled them this way and that were very evident to me. They were like guinea pigs, only more predictable, and my chief form of entertainment was to see how skillfully I could manipulate them. I knew that I was supposed to care about them, but I didn’t. I couldn’t. If mankind’s goal was to alleviate its own suffering, a bullet to the head was more efficient and made more sense in my thinking than screwing around with medication or disease control. What was the point of prolonging any one life? What difference did it make if a girl didn’t live to marry or her mother live to see it? Of what value were temporary emotional experiences? They were simply the biochemistry of the brain reacting to sensory input and, upon that individual’s death, any remaining memory of that experience would be thrown away along with the person who had experienced it. My extreme point of view had reduced people into throwaway metabolic units; I had become as cold and indifferent as the logic that I exalted. If my education would benefit anyone, it would benefit me. I passed up an offer of a low paying research position for a secure and higher paying job in a chemistry lab. My brain rotted there for 40 hours a week for 10 years. RATIONAL THOUGHT TURNS FROM SCIENCE TO PHILOSOPHY Science had done nothing to answer the questions that raged in my head. Why should I care? How much should I care? Should I care at all? What is my purpose in life? Is there a purpose? How can I love people? Should I love people? Which people should I love? How can I forgive people? Should I forgive people? Have I done what is right? Have I done what is wrong? Is there a right or a wrong? I turned to philosophy. I started with Jean-Paul Sartre’s "Being and Nothingness". This man had won a Nobel Prize for basically taking white and logically demonstrating how it was really black. I tried several other atheist philosophers who tried to assign meaning to a life created by chance and I decided that they were all full of crap. If our life is the result of randomness and chance, it is meaningless, no matter how we try to convince ourselves otherwise. That was fine with me. I was prepared to live my life by this truth and discovered that the prospect of a life without meaning can be a very freeing experience. I set out to take advantage of moral relativism and effectively destroyed any of my remaining conscience. Friends, let me tell you, I fell far, far away, but I didn’t know it. I busied myself with one diversion after another, trying to fill my life with meaningless activity in order to forget how meaningless it was. In my desperation, I grew self-righteous and indignant. I was secretly envious of the morons who seemed blissfully unaware of their own meaninglessness. I wanted to shake them awake and get them to see how worthless their lives really were. MY PHILOSOPHY TURNS ANTI-CHRISTIAN The worst idiots were the Christians. I hated them because, in their ignorance of naturalism, they failed to see that there was no reason for the rest of the world to believe in their god, live by their standards or give a damn about what they had to say, yet there they were, acting as if they had a copyright on truth. Their pretentiousness sickened me, despite my being equally pretentious toward them. After all, I was justified in my pretentiousness! At least I could give logical reasons for not believing in the supernatural. I would challenge them to give reasons for believing in something that couldn’t be seen and they would reply, "You can’t see the wind but it’s there." I would then try to explain to them that wind was created by differences in pressure and that there was plenty of scientific proof for the existence of wind but none for their god. Even the most intelligent Christians I knew had a difficult time articulating their reason for faith. Most of the explanations I heard rested on the Bible’s authority. "The Bible says… the Bible says… the Bible says." Who cared what the Bible said? I certainly didn’t. "It’s all a bunch of made up, superstitious baloney. Can’t you see?" and I would then go into pagan origins, etc., and try to demonstrate that Jesus was a manufactured myth. I ended up knowing the Bible inside and out just to be able to debate against it. My anti-Christian arguments became my ultimate diversion to a hopeless life. I learned that religious debate wasn’t as much about truth as it was about language and presentation. I began seeing flaws in my own logic while trying to demonstrate certain instances of Biblical errancy, but that didn’t keep me on the bench. To justify my desire to destroy Christianity, I had to find reasons to discredit it. I railed against its hypocrisy, the behavior of its followers, the wars fought in its name and I questioned the motives of its bloody god and the religion’s effective outcome. In short, I began seeing it as the supreme evil, despite the fact that my own view of moral relativism did not permit a logical defense of the concept of evil. THE PARADOX OF BIBLICAL JABBERWOCKY One night, I was very tired and alone in my study. I didn’t reach, as I usually did, for a book of religious argument. I grabbed Lewis Carroll’s "Through The Looking Glass", plopped myself down in a comfy chair and sleepily began reading. I skimmed through the pages and stopped at Humpty Dumpty’s explanation of ‘Jabberwocky’ to Alice. A thought occurred to me that if I were to read ‘Jabberwocky’ the same way I read the bible, it wouldn’t make any sense at all. I put Carroll’s book aside, folded my hands and stared at the wall, lost in thought. The Bible didn’t make sense to me. But why did it make sense to others? What were they seeing that I didn’t? Did they so desperately want there to be a God that they had deluded themselves into thinking that there was one? It was New Year’s Day, 1998. I made a resolution to read the entire Bible again, only this time I was going to read it as I would poetry or fiction, and not as a proposal of fact. In the months that followed, I kept my resolution and I began noticing a change in my way of interpreting the Bible. Intellectually, I found that my mind could logically accept two very different

Response:

Please stop spamming alt.politics.bush. This is a newsgroup devoted to discussing the atrocities, war crimes & injustices committed by George W. Bush. I thank you in advance for your cooperation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – FROM SKEPTICISM TO WORSHIP by A.S.A. Jones MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY I was a devout atheist for over twenty years. In July of 1998, I finally managed to see the biblical truths that had managed to elude me. The following is an account of how I went from hardcore skepticism to hardcore worship of the Savior, Jesus Christ. RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES THE GOD OF MY YOUTH I was raised a Roman Catholic in a home where the name of Jesus Christ and God was never mentioned. I was encouraged to attend catechism and church every weekend, but the concept of God was never made completely real to me. I entertained the notion as any child would, but I just wasn’t into the imaginary friend scene and by the time I was thirteen, I had concluded that God was merely a vicious adult version of the Easter bunny. I abandoned the lie, informed my upset parents that I would no longer be attending church, and began seeking truth. In the absence of a religious belief to answer life’s questions, I turned my mental energy to science. Science had an awesome track record of solving many problems and its resulting technology had provided tangible benefits to all of mankind. Science was the answer! I reasoned that if we could educate our populations and continue to make advances in medicine, agriculture and energy production, we would one day have the mythical Eden as our reality. I threw myself into my studies, determined to become a scientific messiah who would one day deliver people from the bondage of disease. At the age of sixteen, my IQ and my grades made me eligible for my high school’s early release program and I began my studies in biology and chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh. RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES MY COMPASSION FOR OTHERS I graduated from college with high honors and my prized science degree, but I had lost any motivation to apply that knowledge. I recalled staring at a swarming mass of termites one sunny day, thinking that, from a comparative distance, there was little difference between them and us. I smashed a few dozen with my shoe and ground them into the dirt. What did it matter if these died? What did it matter if they all died? People died every day. The end result would always be death for both the individuals and, eventually, the species. Humanity had become nothing more to me than an organized network of molecules and enzymes. I viewed people as mere organisms going through their daily routines of metabolizing nutrients and expelling wastes, ovulating their eggs and ejaculating their semen. I knew the psychology of humans almost as well as their anatomies. The hidden things that pulled them this way and that were very evident to me. They were like guinea pigs, only more predictable, and my chief form of entertainment was to see how skillfully I could manipulate them. I knew that I was supposed to care about them, but I didn’t. I couldn’t. If mankind’s goal was to alleviate its own suffering, a bullet to the head was more efficient and made more sense in my thinking than screwing around with medication or disease control. What was the point of prolonging any one life? What difference did it make if a girl didn’t live to marry or her mother live to see it? Of what value were temporary emotional experiences? They were simply the biochemistry of the brain reacting to sensory input and, upon that individual’s death, any remaining memory of that experience would be thrown away along with the person who had experienced it. My extreme point of view had reduced people into throwaway metabolic units; I had become as cold and indifferent as the logic that I exalted. If my education would benefit anyone, it would benefit me. I passed up an offer of a low paying research position for a secure and higher paying job in a chemistry lab. My brain rotted there for 40 hours a week for 10 years. RATIONAL THOUGHT TURNS FROM SCIENCE TO PHILOSOPHY Science had done nothing to answer the questions that raged in my head. Why should I care? How much should I care? Should I care at all? What is my purpose in life? Is there a purpose? How can I love people? Should I love people? Which people should I love? How can I forgive people? Should I forgive people? Have I done what is right? Have I done what is wrong? Is there a right or a wrong? I turned to philosophy. I started with Jean-Paul Sartre’s "Being and Nothingness". This man had won a Nobel Prize for basically taking white and logically demonstrating how it was really black. I tried several other atheist philosophers who tried to assign meaning to a life created by chance and I decided that they were all full of crap. If our life is the result of randomness and chance, it is meaningless, no matter how we try to convince ourselves otherwise. That was fine with me. I was prepared to live my life by this truth and discovered that the prospect of a life without meaning can be a very freeing experience. I set out to take advantage of moral relativism and effectively destroyed any of my remaining conscience. Friends, let me tell you, I fell far, far away, but I didn’t know it. I busied myself with one diversion after another, trying to fill my life with meaningless activity in order to forget how meaningless it was. In my desperation, I grew self-righteous and indignant. I was secretly envious of the morons who seemed blissfully unaware of their own meaninglessness. I wanted to shake them awake and get them to see how worthless their lives really were. MY PHILOSOPHY TURNS ANTI-CHRISTIAN The worst idiots were the Christians. I hated them because, in their ignorance of naturalism, they failed to see that there was no reason for the rest of the world to believe in their god, live by their standards or give a damn about what they had to say, yet there they were, acting as if they had a copyright on truth. Their pretentiousness sickened me, despite my being equally pretentious toward them. After all, I was justified in my pretentiousness! At least I could give logical reasons for not believing in the supernatural. I would challenge them to give reasons for believing in something that couldn’t be seen and they would reply, "You can’t see the wind but it’s there." I would then try to explain to them that wind was created by differences in pressure and that there was plenty of scientific proof for the existence of wind but none for their god. Even the most intelligent Christians I knew had a difficult time articulating their reason for faith. Most of the explanations I heard rested on the Bible’s authority. "The Bible says… the Bible says… the Bible says." Who cared what the Bible said? I certainly didn’t. "It’s all a bunch of made up, superstitious baloney. Can’t you see?" and I would then go into pagan origins, etc., and try to demonstrate that Jesus was a manufactured myth. I ended up knowing the Bible inside and out just to be able to debate against it. My anti-Christian arguments became my ultimate diversion to a hopeless life. I learned that religious debate wasn’t as much about truth as it was about language and presentation. I began seeing flaws in my own logic while trying to demonstrate certain instances of Biblical errancy, but that didn’t keep me on the bench. To justify my desire to destroy Christianity, I had to find reasons to discredit it. I railed against its hypocrisy, the behavior of its followers, the wars fought in its name and I questioned the motives of its bloody god and the religion’s effective outcome. In short, I began seeing it as the supreme evil, despite the fact that my own view of moral relativism did not permit a logical defense of the concept of evil. THE PARADOX OF BIBLICAL JABBERWOCKY One night, I was very tired and alone in my study. I didn’t reach, as I usually did, for a book of religious argument. I grabbed Lewis Carroll’s "Through The Looking Glass", plopped myself down in a comfy chair and sleepily began reading. I skimmed through the pages and stopped at Humpty Dumpty’s explanation of ‘Jabberwocky’ to Alice. A thought occurred to me that if I were to read ‘Jabberwocky’ the same way I read the bible, it wouldn’t make any sense at all. I put Carroll’s book aside, folded my hands and stared at the wall, lost in thought. The Bible didn’t make sense to me. But why did it make sense to others? What were they seeing that I didn’t? Did they so desperately want there to be a God that they had deluded themselves into thinking that there was one? It was New Year’s Day, 1998. I made a resolution to read the entire Bible again, only this time I was going to read it as I would poetry or fiction, and not as a proposal of fact. In the months that followed, I kept my resolution and I began noticing a change in my way of interpreting the Bible. Intellectually, I found that my mind could logically accept two very different interpretations of almost everything I was reading. One interpretation of any verse or passage would render the whole story as nonsensical. But the other interpretation allowed the whole story to make sense. If my mind was capable of accepting interpretations that allowed the whole book to make sense, then what was it in me that wanted it not to make sense? This book was reading me as surely as I was reading it. Every time I found fault with its god, I ended up finding a fault of my own. What was I doing when

Response:

FROM SKEPTICISM TO WORSHIP by A.S.A. Jones MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY I was a devout atheist for over twenty years. In July of 1998, I finally managed to see the biblical truths that had managed to elude me. The following is an account of how I went from hardcore skepticism to hardcore worship of the Savior, Jesus Christ. RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES THE GOD OF MY YOUTH I was raised a Roman Catholic in a home where the name of Jesus Christ and God was never mentioned. I was encouraged to attend catechism and church every weekend, but the concept of God was never made completely real to me. I entertained the notion as any child would, but I just wasn’t into the imaginary friend scene and by the time I was thirteen, I had concluded that God was merely a vicious adult version of the Easter bunny. I abandoned the lie, informed my upset parents that I would no longer be attending church, and began seeking truth. In the absence of a religious belief to answer life’s questions, I turned my mental energy to science. Science had an awesome track record of solving many problems and its resulting technology had provided tangible benefits to all of mankind. Science was the answer! I reasoned that if we could educate our populations and continue to make advances in medicine, agriculture and energy production, we would one day have the mythical Eden as our reality. I threw myself into my studies, determined to become a scientific messiah who would one day deliver people from the bondage of disease. At the age of sixteen, my IQ and my grades made me eligible for my high school’s early release program and I began my studies in biology and chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh. RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES MY COMPASSION FOR OTHERS I graduated from college with high honors and my prized science degree, but I had lost any motivation to apply that knowledge. I recalled staring at a swarming mass of termites one sunny day, thinking that, from a comparative distance, there was little difference between them and us. I smashed a few dozen with my shoe and ground them into the dirt. What did it matter if these died? What did it matter if they all died? People died every day. The end result would always be death for both the individuals and, eventually, the species. Humanity had become nothing more to me than an organized network of molecules and enzymes. I viewed people as mere organisms going through their daily routines of metabolizing nutrients and expelling wastes, ovulating their eggs and ejaculating their semen. I knew the psychology of humans almost as well as their anatomies. The hidden things that pulled them this way and that were very evident to me. They were like guinea pigs, only more predictable, and my chief form of entertainment was to see how skillfully I could manipulate them. I knew that I was supposed to care about them, but I didn’t. I couldn’t. If mankind’s goal was to alleviate its own suffering, a bullet to the head was more efficient and made more sense in my thinking than screwing around with medication or disease control. What was the point of prolonging any one life? What difference did it make if a girl didn’t live to marry or her mother live to see it? Of what value were temporary emotional experiences? They were simply the biochemistry of the brain reacting to sensory input and, upon that individual’s death, any remaining memory of that experience would be thrown away along with the person who had experienced it. My extreme point of view had reduced people into throwaway metabolic units; I had become as cold and indifferent as the logic that I exalted. If my education would benefit anyone, it would benefit me. I passed up an offer of a low paying research position for a secure and higher paying job in a chemistry lab. My brain rotted there for 40 hours a week for 10 years. RATIONAL THOUGHT TURNS FROM SCIENCE TO PHILOSOPHY Science had done nothing to answer the questions that raged in my head. Why should I care? How much should I care? Should I care at all? What is my purpose in life? Is there a purpose? How can I love people? Should I love people? Which people should I love? How can I forgive people? Should I forgive people? Have I done what is right? Have I done what is wrong? Is there a right or a wrong? I turned to philosophy. I started with Jean-Paul Sartre’s "Being and Nothingness". This man had won a Nobel Prize for basically taking white and logically demonstrating how it was really black. I tried several other atheist philosophers who tried to assign meaning to a life created by chance and I decided that they were all full of crap. If our life is the result of randomness and chance, it is meaningless, no matter how we try to convince ourselves otherwise. That was fine with me. I was prepared to live my life by this truth and discovered that the prospect of a life without meaning can be a very freeing experience. I set out to take advantage of moral relativism and effectively destroyed any of my remaining conscience. Friends, let me tell you, I fell far, far away, but I didn’t know it. I busied myself with one diversion after another, trying to fill my life with meaningless activity in order to forget how meaningless it was. In my desperation, I grew self-righteous and indignant. I was secretly envious of the morons who seemed blissfully unaware of their own meaninglessness. I wanted to shake them awake and get them to see how worthless their lives really were. MY PHILOSOPHY TURNS ANTI-CHRISTIAN The worst idiots were the Christians. I hated them because, in their ignorance of naturalism, they failed to see that there was no reason for the rest of the world to believe in their god, live by their standards or give a damn about what they had to say, yet there they were, acting as if they had a copyright on truth. Their pretentiousness sickened me, despite my being equally pretentious toward them. After all, I was justified in my pretentiousness! At least I could give logical reasons for not believing in the supernatural. I would challenge them to give reasons for believing in something that couldn’t be seen and they would reply, "You can’t see the wind but it’s there." I would then try to explain to them that wind was created by differences in pressure and that there was plenty of scientific proof for the existence of wind but none for their god. Even the most intelligent Christians I knew had a difficult time articulating their reason for faith. Most of the explanations I heard rested on the Bible’s authority. "The Bible says… the Bible says… the Bible says." Who cared what the Bible said? I certainly didn’t. "It’s all a bunch of made up, superstitious baloney. Can’t you see?" and I would then go into pagan origins, etc., and try to demonstrate that Jesus was a manufactured myth. I ended up knowing the Bible inside and out just to be able to debate against it. My anti-Christian arguments became my ultimate diversion to a hopeless life. I learned that religious debate wasn’t as much about truth as it was about language and presentation. I began seeing flaws in my own logic while trying to demonstrate certain instances of Biblical errancy, but that didn’t keep me on the bench. To justify my desire to destroy Christianity, I had to find reasons to discredit it. I railed against its hypocrisy, the behavior of its followers, the wars fought in its name and I questioned the motives of its bloody god and the religion’s effective outcome. In short, I began seeing it as the supreme evil, despite the fact that my own view of moral relativism did not permit a logical defense of the concept of evil. THE PARADOX OF BIBLICAL JABBERWOCKY One night, I was very tired and alone in my study. I didn’t reach, as I usually did, for a book of religious argument. I grabbed Lewis Carroll’s "Through The Looking Glass", plopped myself down in a comfy chair and sleepily began reading. I skimmed through the pages and stopped at Humpty Dumpty’s explanation of ‘Jabberwocky’ to Alice. A thought occurred to me that if I were to read ‘Jabberwocky’ the same way I read the bible, it wouldn’t make any sense at all. I put Carroll’s book aside, folded my hands and stared at the wall, lost in thought. The Bible didn’t make sense to me. But why did it make sense to others? What were they seeing that I didn’t? Did they so desperately want there to be a God that they had deluded themselves into thinking that there was one? It was New Year’s Day, 1998. I made a resolution to read the entire Bible again, only this time I was going to read it as I would poetry or fiction, and not as a proposal of fact. In the months that followed, I kept my resolution and I began noticing a change in my way of interpreting the Bible. Intellectually, I found that my mind could logically accept two very different interpretations of almost everything I was reading. One interpretation of any verse or passage would render the whole story as nonsensical. But the other interpretation allowed the whole story to make sense. If my mind was capable of accepting interpretations that allowed the whole book to make sense, then what was it in me that wanted it not to make sense? This book was reading me as surely as I was reading it. Every time I found fault with its god, I ended up finding a fault of my own. What was I doing when I condemned this god for commanding Moses to kill? Was I arrogantly making my morality superior to that of the being who allegedly authored all of morality? Was I condemning the actions of an entire nation, which was trapped in a kill or be killed situation? What was it in me that wanted to express outrage at Jesus Christ for telling me that I had to give away everything to be considered worthy to follow him? Was it my own selfishness? For weeks, I was on a high, the type of high that comes about by feeling that one is on the edge of making some sort of profound discovery. I wasn’t sure what I was discovering but my perception … read more »

Response:

The Origin of Marxism is Within a Satanic Mystery Cult

admin — Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Soon after receiving of his diploma, something very mysterious happened. Even before Moses Gess led Marx to socialistic persuasions in 1841, he had become a zealous atheist. This change character could be seen in his later student years. Who rules from above." Marx believed that "the One that rules from above" in fact existed.

Then he wasn’t an atheist. Idiot.

Response:

alt.atheism Soon after receiving of his diploma, something very mysterious happened. Even before Moses Gess led Marx to socialistic persuasions in 1841, he had become a zealous atheist. This change character could be seen in his later student years. Who rules from above." Marx believed that "the One that rules from above" in fact existed.

And I have to say I’m dead impressed with the citation and so forth, though the only poems by Marx I’ve been able to trace are a bunch of love poems dedicated to Jenny Von Westphalen. Then he wasn’t an atheist. Idiot.

Quite. More generally, I’d be interested to see anything by Marx where he explicitly claims atheism. FWIW, my impression was that he thought the existence or no of God(s) irrelevent to the proper business of mankind. — "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." – Attrib: Pauline Reage. Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion? See:

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Soon after receiving of his diploma, something very mysterious happened. Even before Moses Gess led Marx to socialistic persuasions in 1841, he had become a zealous atheist. This change character could be seen in his later student years. Who rules from above." Marx believed that "the One that rules from above" in fact existed. Then he wasn’t an atheist. Idiot. Where does he claim Marx was an atheist?

It’s confusing because he says Marx was a devil worshipper. Then he must believe that atheists are devil worshippers. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I always said he was a CHristian. Christianity creates a conflict in people they don’t know how to resolve themselves. They therefore have to rebel or keep going back to other people for reinforcement.

Response:

The name is Moses Hess. Who rules from above." Marx believed that "the One that rules from above" in fact existed. Then he wasn’t an atheist. Idiot.

Except that he didn’t actually believe that, even if he had a character in a poem say it. Marx wrote some verse early on that fits into the common Romantic-period "Satanism" exemplified by Blake, Byron, Shelley, Baudelaire, Swinburne, and many, many other major and minor poets of the nineteenth-century. — Dan Clore My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_: http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro Lord We