PDA

View Full Version : Re: Michael Jackson - An Angel on Earth


June 26th 09, 02:33 AM
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
wrote:

>The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. Michael Jackson is one
>such being. The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of them
>could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. But you people
>have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and your frivolous
>lawsuits. You have the blood on an innocent man on your hands. You have
>the death of an Angel on your hands. And you will have to answer to God for
>killing one of his most beautiful, perfect beings. I hope you enjoy
>eternity in hell.

Comments?

ted

No Bammer
June 26th 09, 03:30 AM
wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. Michael Jackson is one
>>such being. The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of them
>>could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. But you people
>>have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and your frivolous
>>lawsuits. You have the blood on an innocent man on your hands. You have
>>the death of an Angel on your hands. And you will have to answer to God for
>>killing one of his most beautiful, perfect beings. I hope you enjoy
>>eternity in hell.
>
>
> Comments?
>
> ted

Michael Jackson is in hell now with allah. They are Butt ****ing each
other. You may join them someday.

Lookout
June 26th 09, 05:43 AM
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:33:39 -0700, wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
>wrote:
>
>>The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. Michael Jackson is one
>>such being. The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of them
>>could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. But you people
>>have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and your frivolous
>>lawsuits. You have the blood on an innocent man on your hands. You have
>>the death of an Angel on your hands. And you will have to answer to God for
>>killing one of his most beautiful, perfect beings. I hope you enjoy
>>eternity in hell.
>
>Comments?
>
>ted

Bull****. No such thing as angels.

Invisibrarian
June 26th 09, 06:15 AM
Lookout wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:33:39 -0700, wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. Michael Jackson is one
>>> such being. The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of them
>>> could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. But you people
>>> have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and your frivolous
>>> lawsuits. You have the blood on an innocent man on your hands. You have
>>> the death of an Angel on your hands. And you will have to answer to God for
>>> killing one of his most beautiful, perfect beings. I hope you enjoy
>>> eternity in hell.
>> Comments?
>>
>> ted
>
> Bull****. No such thing as angels.

Its your statement. Prove it.

Lookout
June 26th 09, 01:43 PM
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:15:31 -0500, Invisibrarian >
wrote:

>Lookout wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:33:39 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. Michael Jackson is one
>>>> such being. The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of them
>>>> could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. But you people
>>>> have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and your frivolous
>>>> lawsuits. You have the blood on an innocent man on your hands. You have
>>>> the death of an Angel on your hands. And you will have to answer to God for
>>>> killing one of his most beautiful, perfect beings. I hope you enjoy
>>>> eternity in hell.
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>> ted
>>
>> Bull****. No such thing as angels.
>
>Its your statement. Prove it.

I don't have to. They don't exist. Period. Absolutely no proof what so
ever.

Invisibrarian
June 26th 09, 02:34 PM
Lookout wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:15:31 -0500, Invisibrarian >
> wrote:
>
>> Lookout wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:33:39 -0700, wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. Michael Jackson is one
>>>>> such being. The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of them
>>>>> could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. But you people
>>>>> have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and your frivolous
>>>>> lawsuits. You have the blood on an innocent man on your hands. You have
>>>>> the death of an Angel on your hands. And you will have to answer to God for
>>>>> killing one of his most beautiful, perfect beings. I hope you enjoy
>>>>> eternity in hell.
>>>> Comments?
>>>>
>>>> ted
>>> Bull****. No such thing as angels.
>> Its your statement. Prove it.
>
> I don't have to. They don't exist. Period. Absolutely no proof what so
> ever.

You haven't proven anything.

armpit
June 26th 09, 05:48 PM
"Invisibrarian" > wrote in message
...
> Lookout wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:33:39 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. Michael Jackson is
>>>> one such being. The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of
>>>> them could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. But
>>>> you people have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and
>>>> your frivolous lawsuits. You have the blood on an innocent man on your
>>>> hands. You have the death of an Angel on your hands. And you will
>>>> have to answer to God for killing one of his most beautiful, perfect
>>>> beings. I hope you enjoy eternity in hell.
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>> ted
>>
>> Bull****. No such thing as angels.
>
> Its your statement. Prove it.

Proving a negative isn't possible in most cases. The onus is on the believer
to provide proof of the positive scenario.

Mike Gordon
June 26th 09, 07:12 PM
armpit wrote:

> "Invisibrarian" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Lookout wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:33:39 -0700, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. Michael Jackson is
>>>>>one such being. The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of
>>>>>them could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. But
>>>>>you people have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and
>>>>>your frivolous lawsuits. You have the blood on an innocent man on your
>>>>>hands. You have the death of an Angel on your hands. And you will
>>>>>have to answer to God for killing one of his most beautiful, perfect
>>>>>beings. I hope you enjoy eternity in hell.
>>>>
>>>>Comments?
>>>>
>>>>ted
>>>
>>>Bull****. No such thing as angels.
>>
>>Its your statement. Prove it.
>
>
> Proving a negative isn't possible in most cases. The onus is on the believer
> to provide proof of the positive scenario.


Well, there is always Farrah Fawcett... one of "Charlies Angels"!

I don't hear any stories about HER molesting children.

Lookout
June 26th 09, 07:25 PM
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:51:54 -0400, Tim Shelton
> wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:43:18 -0500, Lookout >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:15:31 -0500, Invisibrarian >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Lookout wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:33:39 -0700, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. Michael Jackson is one
>>>>>> such being. The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of them
>>>>>> could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. But you people
>>>>>> have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and your frivolous
>>>>>> lawsuits. You have the blood on an innocent man on your hands. You have
>>>>>> the death of an Angel on your hands. And you will have to answer to God for
>>>>>> killing one of his most beautiful, perfect beings. I hope you enjoy
>>>>>> eternity in hell.
>>>>> Comments?
>>>>>
>>>>> ted
>>>>
>>>> Bull****. No such thing as angels.
>>>
>>>Its your statement. Prove it.
>>
>>I don't have to. They don't exist. Period. Absolutely no proof what so
>>ever.
>
>No such thing as global warming or carbon credits or carbon footprint
>either.

There are a lot more real than your WMDs which I said didn't exist.

Lookout
June 26th 09, 07:26 PM
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:34:12 -0500, Invisibrarian >
wrote:

>Lookout wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:15:31 -0500, Invisibrarian >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:33:39 -0700, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. Michael Jackson is one
>>>>>> such being. The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of them
>>>>>> could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. But you people
>>>>>> have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and your frivolous
>>>>>> lawsuits. You have the blood on an innocent man on your hands. You have
>>>>>> the death of an Angel on your hands. And you will have to answer to God for
>>>>>> killing one of his most beautiful, perfect beings. I hope you enjoy
>>>>>> eternity in hell.
>>>>> Comments?
>>>>>
>>>>> ted
>>>> Bull****. No such thing as angels.
>>> Its your statement. Prove it.
>>
>> I don't have to. They don't exist. Period. Absolutely no proof what so
>> ever.
>
>You haven't proven anything.

I don't have to. There's nothing to prove when it comes to angels.

Lookout
June 26th 09, 07:27 PM
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:48:32 -0400, "armpit" >
wrote:

>
>"Invisibrarian" > wrote in message
...
>> Lookout wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:33:39 -0700, wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. Michael Jackson is
>>>>> one such being. The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of
>>>>> them could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. But
>>>>> you people have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and
>>>>> your frivolous lawsuits. You have the blood on an innocent man on your
>>>>> hands. You have the death of an Angel on your hands. And you will
>>>>> have to answer to God for killing one of his most beautiful, perfect
>>>>> beings. I hope you enjoy eternity in hell.
>>>> Comments?
>>>>
>>>> ted
>>>
>>> Bull****. No such thing as angels.
>>
>> Its your statement. Prove it.
>
>Proving a negative isn't possible in most cases. The onus is on the believer
>to provide proof of the positive scenario.
>
Now see...you've gone and done it. You're bringing logic and reason
into a conversation with obvious idiots. It's just gonna make them
madder. Watch.

Lookout
June 26th 09, 08:36 PM
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:12:04 -0400, Mike Gordon >
wrote:

>armpit wrote:
>
>> "Invisibrarian" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Lookout wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:33:39 -0700, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. Michael Jackson is
>>>>>>one such being. The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of
>>>>>>them could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. But
>>>>>>you people have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and
>>>>>>your frivolous lawsuits. You have the blood on an innocent man on your
>>>>>>hands. You have the death of an Angel on your hands. And you will
>>>>>>have to answer to God for killing one of his most beautiful, perfect
>>>>>>beings. I hope you enjoy eternity in hell.
>>>>>
>>>>>Comments?
>>>>>
>>>>>ted
>>>>
>>>>Bull****. No such thing as angels.
>>>
>>>Its your statement. Prove it.
>>
>>
>> Proving a negative isn't possible in most cases. The onus is on the believer
>> to provide proof of the positive scenario.
>
>
>Well, there is always Farrah Fawcett... one of "Charlies Angels"!
>
>I don't hear any stories about HER molesting children.

But...I wonder how many under age boys molested themselves to her?

Chuck Steak
June 26th 09, 09:16 PM
In article > wrote:
>Invisibrarian >
>>Lookout wrote:
>>> Invisibrarian > wrote:
>>>> Lookout wrote:



This is the internet.
Nobody has to prove anything.

No Bammer
June 26th 09, 10:32 PM
wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. Michael Jackson is one
>>such being. The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of them
>>could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. But you people
>>have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and your frivolous
>>lawsuits. You have the blood on an innocent man on your hands. You have
>>the death of an Angel on your hands. And you will have to answer to God for
>>killing one of his most beautiful, perfect beings. I hope you enjoy
>>eternity in hell.
>
>
> Comments?
>
> ted

Yes, he and another angel, John Wayne Gacy can spread their wings together.

Mike Gordon
June 26th 09, 11:25 PM
Chuck Steak wrote:

> This is the internet.
> Nobody has to prove anything.

Prove it!

Lookout
June 27th 09, 02:07 AM
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:25:58 -0400, Mike Gordon >
wrote:

>Chuck Steak wrote:
>
>> This is the internet.
>> Nobody has to prove anything.
>
>Prove it!

Hey! Get your own line : )

TS02_05champ
June 27th 09, 05:56 AM
Lookout wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:25:58 -0400, Mike Gordon >
> wrote:
>
>> Chuck Steak wrote:
>>
>>> This is the internet.
>>> Nobody has to prove anything.
>> Prove it!
>
> Hey! Get your own line : )

Hey, stop crossposting your **** to RASN.

Gray Ghost
June 27th 09, 07:35 PM
zagman > wrote in
:

> On Jun 25, 9:33*pm, wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. *Michael Jackson is
>> >one such being. *The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of
>> >them could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. *But
>> >you people have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and
>> >your frivolous lawsuits. *You have the blood on an innocent man on your
>> >hands. *You have the death of an Angel on your hands. *And you will
>> >have to answer to God for killing one of his most beautiful, perfect
>> >beings. *I hope you enjoy eternity in hell.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> ted
>
> I believe there is no such thing as evolution, I prefer to believe in
> the Bible. Believing in the Bible is no different then believing in
> evolution as far as proof. In fact there is more evidence today that
> the Bible is the truth. In fact there are many biblical events that
> have been proven by archaeologists and there is no absolutely no
> positive evidence to back up evolution. The only thing they have
> proved is species can adapt to there environment. So I say it takes
> bigger faith to believe in evolution. Of course neither can really be
> proved. But I do not have to prove the Bible that's why its called
> Faith. Its what I CHOOSE to believe. which in this country is my god
> given right.
>
> Dave
>

Stephen Gould's books were supposed to explain evolution in a way to amke it
understandable to people who were not in the field. I read them at a point in
my life when I wanted to beleive in Darwin and scientific rationalism. The
books instead pushed me back the other way. His "examples" of evolution
became ludicrous by his own standards, proving nothing but the wihful
thinking of a certain group of people.

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

SaPeIsMa
June 27th 09, 08:13 PM
"zagman" > wrote in message
...
>
> I believe there is no such thing as evolution, I prefer to believe in
> the Bible. Believing in the Bible is no different then believing in
> evolution as far as proof. In fact there is more evidence today that
> the Bible is the truth. In fact there are many biblical events that
> have been proven by archaeologists and there is no absolutely no
> positive evidence to back up evolution. The only thing they have
> proved is species can adapt to there environment. So I say it takes
> bigger faith to believe in evolution. Of course neither can really be
> proved. But I do not have to prove the Bible that's why its called
> Faith. Its what I CHOOSE to believe. which in this country is my god
> given right.
>

This is an interesting book that looks at the subject
Written by a scientist too.
http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence-Scientific-Biblical/dp/076790303X

Lookout
June 27th 09, 10:26 PM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:56:40 -0400, TS02_05champ
> wrote:

>Lookout wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:25:58 -0400, Mike Gordon >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Chuck Steak wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is the internet.
>>>> Nobody has to prove anything.
>>> Prove it!
>>
>> Hey! Get your own line : )
>
>Hey, stop crossposting your **** to RASN.

I simply continued the thread. I didn't add any groups to it.

Lookout
June 27th 09, 10:27 PM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:26:59 -0700 (PDT), bosola1 >
wrote:

>On Jun 26, 12:43*am, Lookout > wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:33:39 -0700, wrote:
>> >On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. *Michael Jackson is one
>> >>such being. *The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of them
>> >>could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. *But you people
>> >>have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and your frivolous
>> >>lawsuits. *You have the blood on an innocent man on your hands. *You have
>> >>the death of an Angel on your hands. *And you will have to answer to God for
>> >>killing one of his most beautiful, perfect beings. *I hope you enjoy
>> >>eternity in hell.
>>
>> >Comments?
>>
>> >ted
>>
>> Bull****. No such thing as angels.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>nice try, stop wasting space. Nothing to do? This isn't about you,
>not interested, find something that matters....and make a difference,
>and shut up.

Yet for some reason you just couldn't hit the delete button?

Lookout
June 27th 09, 10:27 PM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:44:38 -0700 (PDT), bosola1 >
wrote:

>On Jun 25, 9:33*pm, wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. *Michael Jackson is one
>> >such being. *The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of them
>> >could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. *But you people
>> >have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and your frivolous
>> >lawsuits. *You have the blood on an innocent man on your hands. *You have
>> >the death of an Angel on your hands. *And you will have to answer to God for
>> >killing one of his most beautiful, perfect beings. *I hope you enjoy
>> >eternity in hell.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> ted
>
> well, yeah. He may have started out as an angel, like we do, but he
>took a bad turn, about 25 years ago, when he started his own
>popularity. He was an icon, whose peersonal life may have been
>totally ****ed beyond our comprehension, and much due to his own
>doing.
>
>The thoughtful world believes he became a horror...to himself, to
>children, the history is out there. He fell apart a long time ago.
>This was no angel, this was a child who never grew up....it's beyond
>messageboards to figure it out. He was a monster as a person,
>apparently, but an enormously talented pop star. Had he grown up,
>he may have been able to dump and leave behind the whole family
>dichotomy a long time ago, but he never did, and that was part of what
>created the monster. Had a lot of people around him, but no support.
>And here we are. This was no innocent man, and I'm fine with God.
>You ask Him.

What god?

Lookout
June 27th 09, 10:30 PM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:20:45 -0700 (PDT), zagman >
wrote:

>On Jun 25, 9:33*pm, wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. *Michael Jackson is one
>> >such being. *The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of them
>> >could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. *But you people
>> >have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and your frivolous
>> >lawsuits. *You have the blood on an innocent man on your hands. *You have
>> >the death of an Angel on your hands. *And you will have to answer to God for
>> >killing one of his most beautiful, perfect beings. *I hope you enjoy
>> >eternity in hell.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> ted
>
>I believe there is no such thing as evolution, I prefer to believe in
>the Bible. Believing in the Bible is no different then believing in
>evolution as far as proof.

Bull****. There is NO proof there is a god. There is decades of
science that proves global warming.

>n fact there is more evidence today that
>the Bible is the truth. In fact there are many biblical events that
>have been proven by archaeologists and there is no absolutely no
>positive evidence to back up evolution.

You're a ****ing idiot.

>he only thing they have
>proved is species can adapt to there environment. So I say it takes
>bigger faith to believe in evolution. Of course neither can really be
>proved. But I do not have to prove the Bible that's why its called
>Faith.

And what is faith? It's belief WITHOUT proof. You're just made
yourself look like an idiot.

>ts what I CHOOSE to believe. which in this country is my god
>given right.
>
>Dave

Nope. No god given rights in this country.

Lookout
June 27th 09, 10:32 PM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:13:53 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" >
wrote:

>
>"zagman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I believe there is no such thing as evolution, I prefer to believe in
>> the Bible. Believing in the Bible is no different then believing in
>> evolution as far as proof. In fact there is more evidence today that
>> the Bible is the truth. In fact there are many biblical events that
>> have been proven by archaeologists and there is no absolutely no
>> positive evidence to back up evolution. The only thing they have
>> proved is species can adapt to there environment. So I say it takes
>> bigger faith to believe in evolution. Of course neither can really be
>> proved. But I do not have to prove the Bible that's why its called
>> Faith. Its what I CHOOSE to believe. which in this country is my god
>> given right.
>>
>
>This is an interesting book that looks at the subject
>Written by a scientist too.
> http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence-Scientific-Biblical/dp/076790303X

One? HAHAHAAHAHAHAH
All religions are fairy tales. Period.

Lookout
June 28th 09, 02:50 AM
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:35:38 -0700 (PDT), zagman >
wrote:

>On Jun 27, 5:30*pm, Lookout > wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:20:45 -0700 >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 25, 9:33*pm, wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:25:07 -0000, "No Mere Mortal" >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >The Bible says there are Angels walking on Earth. *Michael Jackson is one
>> >> >such being. *The Bible says to be kind to strangers because one of them
>> >> >could be an Angel and mere mortals wouldn't recognize him. *But you people
>> >> >have killed Michael with your jealousy, your hatred, and your frivolous
>> >> >lawsuits. *You have the blood on an innocent man on your hands. *You have
>> >> >the death of an Angel on your hands. *And you will have to answer to God for
>> >> >killing one of his most beautiful, perfect beings. *I hope you enjoy
>> >> >eternity in hell.
>>
>> >> Comments?
>>
>> >> ted
>>
>> >I believe there is no such thing as evolution, I prefer to believe in
>> >the Bible. *Believing in the Bible is no different then believing in
>> >evolution as far as proof.
>>
>> Bull****. There is NO proof there is a god. There is decades of
>> science that proves global warming.
>>
>> >n fact there is more evidence today that
>> >the Bible is the truth. In fact *there are many biblical events that
>> >have been proven by archaeologists and there is no absolutely no
>> >positive evidence to back up evolution.
>>
>> You're a ****ing idiot.
>>
>> >he only thing they have
>> >proved is species can adapt to there environment. *So I say it takes
>> >bigger faith to believe in evolution. Of course neither can really be
>> >proved. But I do not have to prove the Bible that's why its called
>> >Faith.
>>
>> And what is faith? It's belief WITHOUT proof. You're just made
>> yourself look like an idiot.
>>
>> >ts what I CHOOSE to believe. which in this country is my god
>> >given right.
>>
>> >Dave
>>
>> Nope. No god given rights in this country.
>
>Did you read my post I NEVER said there is positive proof there is a
>Biblical God
>What is your problem anyway ???

I was responding to

>"ts what I CHOOSE to believe. which in this country is my god given right."

I think you misunderstood the order.

No Bammer
June 29th 09, 02:32 PM
Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
> On Jun 28, 3:20 am, zagman > wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>I prefer to believe in the Bible.
>
>
> So you believe:
> - in stoning adulters,
> - in killing whole populations,
> - in offering your daughters up to be raped,
> - the earth is flat,
> - hares chew cud (like cows do)
> - incest is OK
> - sick people are healed by touching shadows
> - punishing innocents is OK
> - your god always planned to have your jesus killed
>
>

That sounds like the evil Cult of islam.

Lookout
June 29th 09, 07:45 PM
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:04:08 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> wrote:

>On Jun 28, 3:20 am, zagman > wrote:
>[snip]
>> I prefer to believe in the Bible.
>
>So you believe:
>- in stoning adulters,
>- in killing whole populations,
>- in offering your daughters up to be raped,
>- the earth is flat,
>- hares chew cud (like cows do)
>- incest is OK
>- sick people are healed by touching shadows
>- punishing innocents is OK
>- your god always planned to have your jesus killed
>
Hey...you forgot the always popular one where they kill their kid if
he or she swears at them.

Religion is for idiots.

Lookout
June 29th 09, 07:46 PM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:32:51 -0500, No Bammer >
wrote:

>Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>> On Jun 28, 3:20 am, zagman > wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>I prefer to believe in the Bible.
>>
>>
>> So you believe:
>> - in stoning adulters,
>> - in killing whole populations,
>> - in offering your daughters up to be raped,
>> - the earth is flat,
>> - hares chew cud (like cows do)
>> - incest is OK
>> - sick people are healed by touching shadows
>> - punishing innocents is OK
>> - your god always planned to have your jesus killed
>>
>>
>
>That sounds like the evil Cult of islam.
Right out of YOUR bible.

Gray Ghost
June 29th 09, 07:50 PM
Lookout > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:32:51 -0500, No Bammer >
> wrote:
>
>>Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>>> On Jun 28, 3:20 am, zagman > wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>I prefer to believe in the Bible.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you believe:
>>> - in stoning adulters,
>>> - in killing whole populations,
>>> - in offering your daughters up to be raped,
>>> - the earth is flat,
>>> - hares chew cud (like cows do)
>>> - incest is OK
>>> - sick people are healed by touching shadows
>>> - punishing innocents is OK
>>> - your god always planned to have your jesus killed
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That sounds like the evil Cult of islam.
> Right out of YOUR bible.
>

You know so little of modern Christianity, it is little wonder you are such a
bigot.

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

Lookout
June 30th 09, 12:41 PM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:29:05 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> wrote:

>On Jun 30, 6:45 am, Lookout > wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:04:08 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Jun 28, 3:20 am, zagman > wrote:
>> >[snip]
>> >> I prefer to believe in the Bible.
>>
>> >So you believe:
>> >- in stoning adulters,
>> >- in killing whole populations,
>> >- in offering your daughters up to be raped,
>> >- the earth is flat,
>> >- hares chew cud (like cows do)
>> >- incest is OK
>> >- sick people are healed by touching shadows
>> >- punishing innocents is OK
>> >- your god always planned to have your jesus killed
>>
>> Hey...you forgot the always popular one where they kill their kid if
>> he or she swears at them.
>
>There are some doozies, eh?
>
>It is often said that the best cure for religion is to actually read
>the appropriate 'book'.
>All Christains should read their bible, and discover the malice,
>murder, hatred, hypocrisy, lies, errors and contradictions that exist
>within it.
>Likesise all Muslims should read the Koran for the same reasons,
>and ....
>
>
>> Religion is for idiots.
>
>In that we agree: a person has to be retarded to think:
> - goblins and spirits fly around inhabiting people,
> (which the new testament says happens),
> - that a book full on contradictions (and cant even
> get Jesus' birth right with 10 years) is 'inerrant'

15 years ago I was alone in this thinking. Today I find more than a
few agree with me. The madness is ending slowly but surely.

Gray Ghost
June 30th 09, 06:58 PM
Misanthropic Curmudgeon > wrote
in :

> On Jun 30, 1:32 am, No Bammer > wrote:
>> Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>> > On Jun 28, 3:20 am, zagman > wrote:
>> > [snip]
>>
>> >>I prefer to believe in the Bible.
>>
>> > So you believe:
>> > - in stoning adulters,
>> > - in killing whole populations,
>> > - in offering your daughters up to be raped,
>> > - the earth is flat,
>> > - hares chew cud (like cows do)
>> > - incest is OK
>> > - sick people are healed by touching shadows
>> > - punishing innocents is OK
>> > - your god always planned to have your jesus killed
>>
>> That sounds like the evil Cult of islam.
>
> Straight out of the Christian bible. Most Christian's have never read
> their bible, dont know what is in it (beyond the 'sunday-school'
> niceties).
> Take the 'offering your daughters up to be raped' one - done by a man
> said to be 'just'.

Version, chapter and verse so I can check that or did you just "hear it" from
another bigot?


> Take the punishing of innocents, 'visiting sins of the father upon the
> son'.
>
> The Christain bible is a nasty peice of work: its followers either
> ignorant, evil, or they simply tune it all out and cling to the
> 'sunday-school' niceties.
>
>
>



--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

Gray Ghost
July 1st 09, 12:41 AM
Misanthropic Curmudgeon > wrote
in :

> On Jun 30, 6:50*am, (Gray Ghost)
> wrote:
>> Lookout > wrote
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:32:51 -0500, No Bammer >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>> >>> On Jun 28, 3:20 am, zagman > wrote: [snip]
>>
>> >>>>I prefer to believe in the Bible.
>>
>> >>> So you believe:
>> >>> - in stoning adulters,
>> >>> - in killing whole populations,
>> >>> - in offering your daughters up to be raped,
>> >>> - the earth is flat,
>> >>> - hares chew cud (like cows do)
>> >>> - incest is OK
>> >>> - sick people are healed by touching shadows
>> >>> - punishing innocents is OK
>> >>> - your god always planned to have your jesus killed
>>
>> >>That sounds like the evil Cult of islam.
>> > Right out of YOUR bible.
>>
>> You know so little of modern Christianity
>
> Is that the sanitised sunday-school version, made palatable to the
> people? The version that ignores the raping, killing, the incest?
> The version the conveinelty forgets that their jesus said he did not
> come to overthrow those old laws and teachings, but to enforce them?
>
> The version that picks and chooses which part to beleive when
> contradiction arise, like when jesus was born, the contradictions in
> most of the crucifiction myth, and the contadictions about his
> ancestry?
>
> That 'modern Christinaity'??
>
>

First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically says each
thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that much is out of context.

Of course you may have just heard such things down at the He-Man Atheist
Christian Hater's Club. Which means you are just another ignorant bigot.

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

Lookout
July 1st 09, 12:53 AM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:30:55 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> wrote:

>On Jun 30, 11:41*pm, Lookout > wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:29:05 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Jun 30, 6:45 am, Lookout > wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:04:08 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 28, 3:20 am, zagman > wrote:
>> >> >[snip]
>> >> >> I prefer to believe in the Bible.
>>
>> >> >So you believe:
>> >> >- in stoning adulters,
>> >> >- in killing whole populations,
>> >> >- in offering your daughters up to be raped,
>> >> >- the earth is flat,
>> >> >- hares chew cud (like cows do)
>> >> >- incest is OK
>> >> >- sick people are healed by touching shadows
>> >> >- punishing innocents is OK
>> >> >- your god always planned to have your jesus killed
>>
>> >> Hey...you forgot the always popular one where they kill their kid if
>> >> he or she swears at them.
>>
>> >There are some doozies, eh?
>>
>> >It is often said that the best cure for religion is to actually read
>> >the appropriate 'book'.
>> >All Christains should read their bible, and discover the malice,
>> >murder, hatred, hypocrisy, lies, errors and contradictions that exist
>> >within it.
>> >Likesise all Muslims should read the Koran for the same reasons,
>> >and ....
>>
>> >> Religion is for idiots.
>>
>> >In that we agree: a person has to be retarded to think:
>> > - goblins and spirits fly around inhabiting people,
>> > * *(which the new testament says happens),
>> > - that a book full on contradictions (and cant even
>> > * *get Jesus' birth right with 10 years) is 'inerrant'
>>
>> 15 years ago I was alone in this thinking. Today I find more than a
>> few agree with me. The madness is ending slowly but surely.
>
>People's abadonment of religious delusion is a product of:
> - education (which is perhaps why so many
> god-squad oppose education),
> - people actually having access to their books
> of faith (and relising the idiocy therein) whereas
> previously it was all channed through their
> controllers (ie clegy).
> - greater access to critical discourse (which
> again is often oppossed by their cults for fear
> of 'contaninating' them).
>
>This greater access to critical discourse allows people to share the
>biblical fables and deconstruct them for the myth they are, without
>having the onerous 'pastor' or 'scholar' or 'iman' doing any 'guiding'
>in their quest for knowledge to a predermined outcome.

The information age is what ended communism and it's ending religion.
Once people have access to information they soon give up silly fairy
tales.

Lookout
July 1st 09, 12:55 AM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:35:59 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> wrote:

>On Jun 30, 6:50*am, (Gray Ghost)
>wrote:
>> Lookout > wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:32:51 -0500, No Bammer >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>> >>> On Jun 28, 3:20 am, zagman > wrote:
>> >>> [snip]
>>
>> >>>>I prefer to believe in the Bible.
>>
>> >>> So you believe:
>> >>> - in stoning adulters,
>> >>> - in killing whole populations,
>> >>> - in offering your daughters up to be raped,
>> >>> - the earth is flat,
>> >>> - hares chew cud (like cows do)
>> >>> - incest is OK
>> >>> - sick people are healed by touching shadows
>> >>> - punishing innocents is OK
>> >>> - your god always planned to have your jesus killed
>>
>> >>That sounds like the evil Cult of islam.
>> > Right out of YOUR bible.
>>
>> You know so little of modern Christianity
>
>Is that the sanitised sunday-school version, made palatable to the
>people? The version that ignores the raping, killing, the incest?
>The version the conveinelty forgets that their jesus said he did not
>come to overthrow those old laws and teachings, but to enforce them?
>
>The version that picks and chooses which part to beleive when
>contradiction arise, like when jesus was born, the contradictions in
>most of the crucifiction myth, and the contadictions about his
>ancestry?
>
>That 'modern Christinaity'??

He's one of those who can't read on his own. All he knows is what the
barely high school educated preacher tells him. He's an idiot.

(and filtered! And now he's emailing me because I'm ignoring him in
here. He's lonely!)

Gray Ghost
July 1st 09, 02:26 AM
Lookout > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:35:59 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 30, 6:50*am, (Gray Ghost)
>>wrote:
>>> Lookout > wrote
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:32:51 -0500, No Bammer
>>> > > wrote:
>>>
>>> >>Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>>> >>> On Jun 28, 3:20 am, zagman > wrote: [snip]
>>>
>>> >>>>I prefer to believe in the Bible.
>>>
>>> >>> So you believe:
>>> >>> - in stoning adulters,
>>> >>> - in killing whole populations,
>>> >>> - in offering your daughters up to be raped,
>>> >>> - the earth is flat,
>>> >>> - hares chew cud (like cows do)
>>> >>> - incest is OK
>>> >>> - sick people are healed by touching shadows
>>> >>> - punishing innocents is OK
>>> >>> - your god always planned to have your jesus killed
>>>
>>> >>That sounds like the evil Cult of islam.
>>> > Right out of YOUR bible.
>>>
>>> You know so little of modern Christianity
>>
>>Is that the sanitised sunday-school version, made palatable to the
>>people? The version that ignores the raping, killing, the incest?
>>The version the conveinelty forgets that their jesus said he did not
>>come to overthrow those old laws and teachings, but to enforce them?
>>
>>The version that picks and chooses which part to beleive when
>>contradiction arise, like when jesus was born, the contradictions in
>>most of the crucifiction myth, and the contadictions about his ancestry?
>>
>>That 'modern Christinaity'??
>
> He's one of those who can't read on his own. All he knows is what the
> barely high school educated preacher tells him. He's an idiot.
>
> (and filtered! And now he's emailing me because I'm ignoring him in
> here. He's lonely!)

I'm emailing you? Good thing for you you don't beleive in Hell, I suppose.
Being an Atheist apparently means it's OK to lie.

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

Lookout
July 1st 09, 03:21 AM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:58:51 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> wrote:

>On Jul 1, 11:41*am, (Gray Ghost)
>wrote:
>[snip]
>> > The version that picks and chooses which part to beleive when
>> > contradiction arise, like when jesus was born, the contradictions in
>> > most of the crucifiction myth, and the contadictions about his
>> > ancestry?
>>
>> > That 'modern Christinaity'??
>>
>> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically
>> says each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that
>> much is out of context.
>
>You suspect wrong. regarding the huge variance of jesus' birth,
>consider
>1) Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, which say he was
> born in the days of King Herod. Herod died in
> 4 BC, so jesus cant have been born arfter 4BC
>2) Luke 2:1, which says jesus' birth was while
> Caesar Augustus was taxing, which was when
> Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Quirinius
> became governer of Syria in 6AD
>As you can see from readingthe bible and knowing some elementry
>history the bible has a ten year variance (at least) on when jesus was
>born (and Luke even contradicts himself)

Toss in the animals were in the mangers when in fact in December they
would have been in the upper valleys to keep warm. They come to the
mangers when the are giving birth in the spring.

>How about the contradictions of jesus ancestry? (ignoring that whole
>father is god thing). Its a bit long to type out, but look at:
>1) Matthew 1:6-16
>2) Luke 3:21-31
>3) 1Chronicles 3:10-16
>Some similarities - a lot of differences.
>
>Wanna carry on?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Of course you may have just heard such things down at the He-Man Atheist
>> Christian Hater's Club. Which means you are just another ignorant bigot.
>>
>> --
>> Always remember:
>>
>> Bull Connor was a Democrat!
And you're an idiot.

Gray Ghost
July 1st 09, 04:26 AM
Misanthropic Curmudgeon > wrote
in :

> On Jul 1, 11:41*am, (Gray Ghost)
> wrote:
> [snip]
>> > The version that picks and chooses which part to beleive when
>> > contradiction arise, like when jesus was born, the contradictions in
>> > most of the crucifiction myth, and the contadictions about his
>> > ancestry?
>>
>> > That 'modern Christinaity'??
>>
>> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically
>> says each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that much is out
>> of context.
>
> You suspect wrong. regarding the huge variance of jesus' birth,
> consider
> 1) Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, which say he was
> born in the days of King Herod. Herod died in
> 4 BC, so jesus cant have been born arfter 4BC
> 2) Luke 2:1, which says jesus' birth was while
> Caesar Augustus was taxing, which was when
> Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Quirinius
> became governer of Syria in 6AD
> As you can see from readingthe bible and knowing some elementry
> history the bible has a ten year variance (at least) on when jesus was
> born (and Luke even contradicts himself)
>
> How about the contradictions of jesus ancestry? (ignoring that whole
> father is god thing). Its a bit long to type out, but look at:
> 1) Matthew 1:6-16
> 2) Luke 3:21-31
> 3) 1Chronicles 3:10-16
> Some similarities - a lot of differences.
>
> Wanna carry on?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Of course you may have just heard such things down at the He-Man Atheist
>> Christian Hater's Club. Which means you are just another ignorant bigot.
>>
>> --
>> Always remember:
>>
>> Bull Connor was a Democrat!
>
>

Hmmm, nothing about giving one's daughters up to rape.

Dismissed.

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

Gray Ghost
July 1st 09, 03:43 PM
Misanthropic Curmudgeon > wrote
in :

> On Jul 1, 11:41*am, (Gray Ghost)
> wrote:
> [snip]
>> >> >>> - the earth is flat,
>> >> >>> - hares chew cud (like cows do)
>
>> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically says
>> each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that much is out of
>> context.
>
> Oh, OK, here's more. I'm having fun!
>
> The bible claims the earth is flat. Not directly, or course, but
> consider:
> 1) Psalms 33:14-15, which has your god
> sitting in a seat looking down the whole
> earth. This can not be achived by
> looking at a global sphere
> 2) Isaiah 11:12, which which refers to 'the
> four corners'. Does a global sphere
> have four corners? No. Does a flat
> square? yes.
> 3) Isaiah 40:22 has the earth as being a
> flat disc/circle
> 4) Ezekiel 7:2 has it as being flat, with
> four corners (which matches quite
> well with Isaiah 11:12, above)
> 5) Daniel 2:35 talks of a stone becoming
> "a great mountain" that "filled the
> whole earth." This could only be
> possible on a flat, disc-shaped earth.
> 6) Daniel 4:10-11 and 20 talks of tree is
> tall enough to be seen from "the end
> of all the earth." Of course this can't
> happen with a global earth, and is only
> possible with a flat earth
> 7) Matthew 4:8 is similar to Daniel, in
> talking of "an exceedingly high
> mountain," high enough to see "all the
> kingdoms of the world." Again only
> possible with a flat earth.
> 8) Luke 4:5 says the same as Matthew 4:8
> 9) For the doom-sayers, Revelation 1:7 says
> "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every
> eye shall see him." Again, this could only
> happen on a flat earth.
> 10) And again in Revelation where "four
> angels [will be standing] on the four corners
> of the earth."

You do realize that when the Bible was written that man perceieved the earth
as flat? That there was no frame of reference to suggest the earth was round
or the vastness of the universe. That lacking any existing ability to see the
earth as a sphere that writing of any sort is likely to resort to a frame of
reference that readers are likely to grasp?

Were Ptolemy and Aristotle idiots? Galileo was a devout Roman Catholic yet he
was able to reason how the universe actually worked, about 1600 years after
Christ.

As I understand it flat earth theory was quite common amomgst all people at
the time as the universe was simply inconceivable to people at the time.


>
> And the silliness about hares chewing cud like cows? See Deuteronomy
> 14:7 and Leviticus11:6, which say
> "these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that
> divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for
> they chew the cud," and "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud"
> respectively.

I'll have to look that one up.

>
>
> Face it, your bible is a mash of lies, errors, contradictions,
> mythology and fantasy.
>
>
>
>

So is modern Liberalism, but it has no redeeming value.

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

Gray Ghost
July 1st 09, 04:51 PM
Misanthropic Curmudgeon > wrote
in :

> On Jul 1, 11:41*am, (Gray Ghost)
> wrote:
> [snip]
>> >> >>> - the earth is flat,
>> >> >>> - hares chew cud (like cows do)
>
>> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically says
>> each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that much is out of
>> context.
>
> Oh, OK, here's more. I'm having fun!
>
> And the silliness about hares chewing cud like cows? See Deuteronomy
> 14:7 and Leviticus11:6, which say
> "these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that
> divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for
> they chew the cud," and "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud"
> respectively.
>
>

http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html

Lev. 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the
hoof; he is unclean unto you. (See also Deut. 14:7)

This is one of the most popular objections in the Skeptical book, and it's
basically this: Hares (or some say rabbits, but "hare" is what is in mind
here) are not ruminants; they practice refection. Refection is a process in
which animals like hares eat their own dung mixed with undigested material.
The Hebrew does not use the word for "dung". Therefore this passage is wrong.

The objection is also registered against the verses mentioning the coney, or
hyrax; however, the identification of this animal is uncertain -- we will
assume it to be an animal that refects as well.

Two issues are at hand: the definition of "cud" and that of "chewing." Let's
take a close look at the Hebrew version of both. Here is the word for "cud"
according to Strong's:

gerah, the cud (as scraping the throat):--cud.

There are a few factors we need to keep in mind here. First, this word is
used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and
Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in
terms of the Mosaic law.

Second, refection is a process whereby these animals pass pellets of
partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste material)
in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. It
is not just "dung" that the hares are eating, which is probably why the
Hebrew word for "dung" was not used here.

Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is
what we moderns call "chewing the cud." They regurgiate partially digested
food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more after while
mixing it with saliva.

So then: partially digested food is a common element here. We therefore
suggest that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food --
the process is not the issue, just the object.

Objection: Are you more of an expert in Hebrew than all those Bible scholars
like Strong who decided that 'cud' was the best word to use here?

More of an expert in Hebrew, no -- the problem is that those Hebrew experts
aren't experts in animal biology. It's commonly noted, in a weaker defense of
this verse, that hares look like they chew cud, such that even Linneaus was
fooled by them and classified them as ruminants -- and even many modern books
on rabbits and hares have no reference to it. Everyone sees rabbits and hares
chewing and might come to the same conclusion, but few know about refection
-- least of all experts in Hebrew who spend most of their days indoors out of
the sight of hares.

Hares refect at night and underground. Isn't it more likely that Moses made a
mistake like Linneaus, based on appearances?"

Hares actually do this mostly at night and underground -- not always; and the
reason for this is that the behavior usually takes place 3-8 hours after
eating. But the reason so few people know about this behavior today is
because we spend so much time indoors -- and because when we are outdoors, we
tend to stomp around and scare timid creatures like hares.

So little wonder we don't see it much -- and even rabbit owners don't see it
because they of course feed their bunnies on their schedules -- so that
refection happens while they are asleep.

In contrast, the ancients lived mainly outdoors and many of them were
pastoral sorts who spent hours in the field. So -- don't think for a moment
that this wasn't something the average ancient wouldn't have known about.
They were a lot more observant than we are (because they needed to be to
survive) and spent a lot more time in places where they could see this
behavior.

At the same time, it would be rather pointless -- and an argument from
silence -- to make the point that refection is not mentioned in any other
ancient documents. For this objection to have merit, one must produce a
surviving ancient documentation that should have mentioned it, but didn't --
and that's rather a hard row to hoe.

The verse says 'bring up' the cud -- sounds like regurgitation to me.

Our other key word here is 'alah, and it is found in some grammatical form on
literally every page of the OT. This is because it is a word that encompasses
many concepts other than "bring up." It also can mean ascend up, carry up,
cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up, and much more. It is a
catch-all verb form describing the moving of something to another place. (The
literal rendering here is, "maketh the gerah to 'alah.")

Now in the verses in question, 'alah is used as a participle. Let's look at
the other verses where it is used this way (NIV only implies some of these
phrases; where in parentheses, the phrase is in the original, sometimes in
the KJV):

Josh. 24:17 It was the Lord our God himself who brought us and our fathers up
out of Egypt....

1 Sam. 7:10 While Samuel was sacrificing (offering) the burnt offering...

Nahum 3:3 Charging cavalry, flashing swords (lifted), and glittering spears!

Isaiah 8:7 ...therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty
floodwaters of the River...

2 Chron. 24:14 When they had finished, they brought the rest of the money...

Ps. 135:7 He makes clouds rise (up) from the ends of the earth...

2 Sam. 6:15 ...while he and the entire house of Israel brought the ark of the
Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets. (Similar quote, 1 Chr. 15:28)

So: the Hebrew word is question is not specific to the process of
regurgitation; it is a phrase of general movement. And related to the
specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does "maketh" the
previously digested material to "come" out of the body (though in a different
way than a ruminant does) and does thereafter does chew "predigested
material". The mistake is in our applying of the scientific terms of
rumination to something that does not require it.

http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con055.asp

Cud chewers are generally classified as belonging to the order of ruminants-
(a sub order of artiodactyls) - and are defined as an "even-toed animal that
regurgitates and masticates its food after swallowing. " This means that a
cow, for example, will eat vegetation and swallow it. The cow's stomach is
divided into four chambers where some of more easily digestible nutrients are
absorbed by the body while other more fibrous material is stored in the
stomach and then regurgitated. The cow will re-chew this material and re-
swallow it so that it can digest it as well.

Rabbits and hares, however, do not have a chambered stomach such as the cow.
They also do not regurgitate their food. What they do perform is a function
named cecotropy. I will quote the process as cited at
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/rjbiology/ELOs/ELO45.html

SYMBIOSIS WITHIN THE VERTEBRATE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM

Bacterial Digestion of Cellulose Within Animals - Vertebrates lack enzymes to
digest plant material. Some bacteria can do so and are harbored by animals...
Rats and rabbits redigest cellulose another way. [They] eat feces and
literally redigest them a second time. Efficiency approaches that of
ruminants.

In a more detailed version, Margert "Casey" Kilcullen-Steiner, (M.S., L.A.Tg)
writes:
http://microvet.arizona.edu/Courses/MIC443/notes/rabbits.htm

Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of
coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization
of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of
certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are
fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant
material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck
together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are
seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are
passed and swallows them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to
drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical
problem or illness in the rabbit.

And Janet Tast, D.V.M. notes:
http://www.ultranet.com/~hrs/artcl03.htm

Cecotrophy by Janet Tast, D.V.M. "Cecotropy is the process by which
rabbits will reingest part of their feces directly from the rectum. This
should not be confused with the term coprophagy (eating fecal material) since
rabbits only ingest the soft "night" feces or cecotrophs."

Caryl Hilscher-Conklin (M.S. in Biology, University of Notre Dame) also makes
this claim:
http://www.rmca.org/Articles/coprophagy.htm

"One may not give much thought to the lazy chewing of the cud that we
observe cows doing all the time, but this behavior is analogous to
coprophagy. The only difference between cud chewing and coprophagy is the
point in the digestive tract at which nutrients are expelled and then placed
back into the mouth."

Now, we must also remember that artiodactyls were first defined as a separate
order in 1847 by Richard Owen and the behavior of cecotropy was first
recognized in 1882. Deuteronomy, however, was written approximately 1500 BC
in an ancient Hebrew. It would be intellectually dishonest for someone to
claim that a 3500 year old writing is contradictory because it doesn't match
with a scientific classification invented only about a hundred years ago.
Further, if the ancient Hebrews defined 'cud-chewing" as that process where
half digested vegetation was re-chewed by an animal for easier re-digestion
( and that is a very specific and scientific definition), I would say the
hare fits here fine.

Whenever someone translates an ancient language or writing, some word for
word parallels are not going to be available. Most scholars understand this
and accept the cultural backgrounds and meanings for what they are. This is
why hermeneutics is a serious field of study in higher education.

I hope this has cleared up any misconceptions you may have had on the
accuracy of the Biblical text.

http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con055.asp#ixzz0K1W4JcSV&D


--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

Gray Ghost
July 1st 09, 05:19 PM
Misanthropic Curmudgeon > wrote
in :

> On Jul 1, 3:26*pm, (Gray Ghost)
> wrote:
>> Misanthropic Curmudgeon >
>> wrote
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 1, 11:41*am, (Gray Ghost)
>> > wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >> > The version that picks and chooses which part to beleive when
>> >> > contradiction arise, like when jesus was born, the contradictions
>> >> > in most of the crucifiction myth, and the contadictions about his
>> >> > ancestry?
>>
>> >> > That 'modern Christinaity'??
>>
>> >> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically
>> >> says each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that much is out
>> >> of context.
>>
>> > You suspect wrong. *regarding the huge variance of jesus' birth,
>> > consider 1) *Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, which say he was
>> > * * *born in the days of King Herod. *Herod died in
>> > * * *4 BC, so jesus cant have been born arfter 4BC
>> > 2) Luke 2:1, which says jesus' birth was while
>> > * * Caesar Augustus was taxing, which was when
>> > * * Cyrenius was governor of Syria. *Quirinius
>> > * * became governer of Syria in 6AD
>> > As you can see from readingthe bible and knowing some elementry
>> > history the bible has a ten year variance (at least) on when jesus was
>> > born (and Luke even contradicts himself)
>>
>> > How about the contradictions of jesus ancestry? (ignoring that whole
>> > father is god thing). *Its a bit long to type out, but look at:
>> > 1) Matthew 1:6-16
>> > 2) Luke 3:21-31
>> > 3) 1Chronicles 3:10-16
>> > Some similarities - a lot of differences.
>>
>> > Wanna carry on?
> [snip]
>> Hmmm, nothing about giving one's daughters up to rape.
>
> Firstly, my reply appears to have gone missing. I quoted what Lot
> said Genesis 19:8 "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not
> known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to
> them as is good in your eyes" And please dont plead ignorance of what
> 'knowing' means: you'll embarrass youself.
> This is the man who was called "just" in 2 Peter 2:7-8.

As I thought, this is wholly out of context, in more than one way. Who was
Lot, where did this take place, who was in the crowd, who (or what) was being
protected, what was the likelyhood that a group of homosexuals would even
want to "know" females?. In any case, Lot was not a particulaly "just" man at
the time of this occurence. Do you know why?

Taken as you presented it, it does seem pretty bad. Taken as part of a larger
narrative it is instructive.

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

SaPeIsMa
July 1st 09, 05:22 PM
"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
wrote in message
...
On Jul 1, 11:41 am, (Gray Ghost)
wrote:
[snip]
> > The version that picks and chooses which part to beleive when
> > contradiction arise, like when jesus was born, the contradictions in
> > most of the crucifiction myth, and the contadictions about his
> > ancestry?
>
> > That 'modern Christinaity'??
>
> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically
> says each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that
> much is out of context.
#
# You suspect wrong. regarding the huge variance of jesus' birth,
# consider
# 1) Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, which say he was
# born in the days of King Herod. Herod died in
# 4 BC, so jesus cant have been born arfter 4BC
# 2) Luke 2:1, which says jesus' birth was while
# Caesar Augustus was taxing, which was when
# Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Quirinius
# became governer of Syria in 6AD
# As you can see from readingthe bible and knowing some elementry
# history the bible has a ten year variance (at least) on when jesus was
# born (and Luke even contradicts himself)
#
# How about the contradictions of jesus ancestry? (ignoring that whole
# father is god thing). Its a bit long to type out, but look at:
# 1) Matthew 1:6-16
# 2) Luke 3:21-31
# 3) 1Chronicles 3:10-16
# Some similarities - a lot of differences.
#
# Wanna carry on?
# #

Why ?
It takes a fool to nitpick about minutiae. All the while ignoring the basic
facts that going back 1,000 years,
1) most people were illiterate
2) most history was passed on orally
3) errors are bound to occur as such history is passed on.

It also takes a fool to claim, the the lesson taught should be ignored
because some of the history behind the lesson is in error.
That's the equivalent of throwing out the whole meal because a bug was
found in the salad.

Which is why rabid atheists are reduced to such arguments
Fools all.






> Of course you may have just heard such things down at the He-Man Atheist
> Christian Hater's Club. Which means you are just another ignorant bigot.
>
> --
> Always remember:
>
> Bull Connor was a Democrat!

SaPeIsMa
July 1st 09, 05:41 PM
"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
wrote in message
...
On Jul 1, 3:26 pm, (Gray Ghost)
wrote:
> Misanthropic Curmudgeon >
> wrote
> :
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 11:41 am, (Gray Ghost)
> > wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> > The version that picks and chooses which part to beleive when
> >> > contradiction arise, like when jesus was born, the contradictions in
> >> > most of the crucifiction myth, and the contadictions about his
> >> > ancestry?
>
> >> > That 'modern Christinaity'??
>
> >> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically
> >> says each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that much is out
> >> of context.
>
> > You suspect wrong. regarding the huge variance of jesus' birth,
> > consider
> > 1) Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, which say he was
> > born in the days of King Herod. Herod died in
> > 4 BC, so jesus cant have been born arfter 4BC
> > 2) Luke 2:1, which says jesus' birth was while
> > Caesar Augustus was taxing, which was when
> > Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Quirinius
> > became governer of Syria in 6AD
> > As you can see from readingthe bible and knowing some elementry
> > history the bible has a ten year variance (at least) on when jesus was
> > born (and Luke even contradicts himself)
>
> > How about the contradictions of jesus ancestry? (ignoring that whole
> > father is god thing). Its a bit long to type out, but look at:
> > 1) Matthew 1:6-16
> > 2) Luke 3:21-31
> > 3) 1Chronicles 3:10-16
> > Some similarities - a lot of differences.
>
> > Wanna carry on?
[snip]
> Hmmm, nothing about giving one's daughters up to rape.
#
# Firstly, my reply appears to have gone missing. I quoted what Lot
# said Genesis 19:8 "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not
# known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to
# them as is good in your eyes" And please dont plead ignorance of what
# 'knowing' means: you'll embarrass youself.
# This is the man who was called "just" in 2 Peter 2:7-8.
#

Yup
History is full of things that were considered acceptable at the time
but are unacceptable today
Your problem is that one of the factors that made such things unacceptable
today are the very teachings your denigrate by nitpicking minutiae in the
telling.


# Secondly, I note you avoid engaging with the other examples of
# biblical contradictions that I present: namely jesus' birth and
# ancestry.

And how does such minutiae nits diminish
1) The teachings from Jesus
2) All the benefis past and present of the Judeo-Christian ethics

By the way, maybe you should read what Blaise Pascal had to say about
whether one should believe or not in God.

Lookout
July 1st 09, 06:41 PM
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:22:42 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" >
wrote:

>
>"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
>wrote in message
...
>On Jul 1, 11:41 am, (Gray Ghost)
>wrote:
>[snip]
>> > The version that picks and chooses which part to beleive when
>> > contradiction arise, like when jesus was born, the contradictions in
>> > most of the crucifiction myth, and the contadictions about his
>> > ancestry?
>>
>> > That 'modern Christinaity'??
>>
>> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically
>> says each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that
>> much is out of context.
>#
># You suspect wrong. regarding the huge variance of jesus' birth,
># consider
># 1) Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, which say he was
># born in the days of King Herod. Herod died in
># 4 BC, so jesus cant have been born arfter 4BC
># 2) Luke 2:1, which says jesus' birth was while
># Caesar Augustus was taxing, which was when
># Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Quirinius
># became governer of Syria in 6AD
># As you can see from readingthe bible and knowing some elementry
># history the bible has a ten year variance (at least) on when jesus was
># born (and Luke even contradicts himself)
>#
># How about the contradictions of jesus ancestry? (ignoring that whole
># father is god thing). Its a bit long to type out, but look at:
># 1) Matthew 1:6-16
># 2) Luke 3:21-31
># 3) 1Chronicles 3:10-16
># Some similarities - a lot of differences.
>#
># Wanna carry on?
># #
>
>Why ?
>It takes a fool to nitpick about minutiae. All the while ignoring the basic
>facts that going back 1,000 years,
>1) most people were illiterate
>2) most history was passed on orally
>3) errors are bound to occur as such history is passed on.
>
>It also takes a fool to claim, the the lesson taught should be ignored
>because some of the history behind the lesson is in error.
> That's the equivalent of throwing out the whole meal because a bug was
>found in the salad.
>
>Which is why rabid atheists are reduced to such arguments
> Fools all.

Ok. Prove there is a god. We'll get to the specifics later (christian,
moslem, etc) but for now prove there is A god.

Lookout
July 1st 09, 06:41 PM
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:41:05 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" >
wrote:

>
>"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
>wrote in message
...
>On Jul 1, 3:26 pm, (Gray Ghost)
>wrote:
>> Misanthropic Curmudgeon >
>> wrote
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 1, 11:41 am, (Gray Ghost)
>> > wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >> > The version that picks and chooses which part to beleive when
>> >> > contradiction arise, like when jesus was born, the contradictions in
>> >> > most of the crucifiction myth, and the contadictions about his
>> >> > ancestry?
>>
>> >> > That 'modern Christinaity'??
>>
>> >> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically
>> >> says each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that much is out
>> >> of context.
>>
>> > You suspect wrong. regarding the huge variance of jesus' birth,
>> > consider
>> > 1) Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, which say he was
>> > born in the days of King Herod. Herod died in
>> > 4 BC, so jesus cant have been born arfter 4BC
>> > 2) Luke 2:1, which says jesus' birth was while
>> > Caesar Augustus was taxing, which was when
>> > Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Quirinius
>> > became governer of Syria in 6AD
>> > As you can see from readingthe bible and knowing some elementry
>> > history the bible has a ten year variance (at least) on when jesus was
>> > born (and Luke even contradicts himself)
>>
>> > How about the contradictions of jesus ancestry? (ignoring that whole
>> > father is god thing). Its a bit long to type out, but look at:
>> > 1) Matthew 1:6-16
>> > 2) Luke 3:21-31
>> > 3) 1Chronicles 3:10-16
>> > Some similarities - a lot of differences.
>>
>> > Wanna carry on?
>[snip]
>> Hmmm, nothing about giving one's daughters up to rape.
>#
># Firstly, my reply appears to have gone missing. I quoted what Lot
># said Genesis 19:8 "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not
># known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to
># them as is good in your eyes" And please dont plead ignorance of what
># 'knowing' means: you'll embarrass youself.
># This is the man who was called "just" in 2 Peter 2:7-8.
>#
>
>Yup
> History is full of things that were considered acceptable at the time
>but are unacceptable today
>Your problem is that one of the factors that made such things unacceptable
>today are the very teachings your denigrate by nitpicking minutiae in the
>telling.
>
>
># Secondly, I note you avoid engaging with the other examples of
># biblical contradictions that I present: namely jesus' birth and
># ancestry.
>
>And how does such minutiae nits diminish
>1) The teachings from Jesus
>2) All the benefis past and present of the Judeo-Christian ethics
>
>By the way, maybe you should read what Blaise Pascal had to say about
>whether one should believe or not in God.
>
Prove there is a god. ANY god.

SaPeIsMa
July 1st 09, 07:39 PM
"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
wrote in message
...
On Jul 1, 11:41 am, (Gray Ghost)
wrote:
[snip]
> >> >>> - the earth is flat,
> >> >>> - hares chew cud (like cows do)

> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically says
> each
> thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that much is out of context.
#
# Oh, OK, here's more. I'm having fun!
#
# The bible claims the earth is flat. Not directly, or course, but
# consider:



DOH !
And at the time, most people believed that
And they really had not evidence to the contrary

#
# Face it, your bible is a mash of lies, errors, contradictions,
# mythology and fantasy.
#

Face it, your intellectual dishonesty vilifies people because at the time of
the writing of the bible, their knowledge base was less than it is now.
What you are doing is dishones and stupidly arrogant
But hey, that seems to be common coin among your type

Lookout
July 1st 09, 09:18 PM
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:39:57 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" >
wrote:

>
>"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
>wrote in message
...
>On Jul 1, 11:41 am, (Gray Ghost)
>wrote:
>[snip]
>> >> >>> - the earth is flat,
>> >> >>> - hares chew cud (like cows do)
>
>> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically says
>> each
>> thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that much is out of context.
>#
># Oh, OK, here's more. I'm having fun!
>#
># The bible claims the earth is flat. Not directly, or course, but
># consider:
>
>
>
>DOH !
> And at the time, most people believed that
> And they really had not evidence to the contrary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
"This belief contrasts with the view introduced around the 4th century
BC by natural philosophers of Classical Greece that the Earth is
spherical."

"Recent scholarship, particularly since the 1990s,[3] has shown that
"with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history
of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed
that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a
spherical earth."

So are you lying or just wrong?

>#
># Face it, your bible is a mash of lies, errors, contradictions,
># mythology and fantasy.
>#
>
>Face it, your intellectual dishonesty vilifies people because at the time of
>the writing of the bible, their knowledge base was less than it is now.
>What you are doing is dishones and stupidly arrogant
>But hey, that seems to be common coin among your type
>
The bible is nothing but a fairy tale

Gray Ghost
July 1st 09, 09:54 PM
"SaPeIsMa" > wrote in
ernet:

>
> "Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
> wrote in message
> ...
> On Jul 1, 3:26 pm, (Gray Ghost)
> wrote:
>> Misanthropic Curmudgeon >
>> wrote
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 1, 11:41 am, (Gray Ghost)
>> > wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >> > The version that picks and chooses which part to beleive when
>> >> > contradiction arise, like when jesus was born, the contradictions in
>> >> > most of the crucifiction myth, and the contadictions about his
>> >> > ancestry?
>>
>> >> > That 'modern Christinaity'??
>>
>> >> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically
>> >> says each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that much is out
>> >> of context.
>>
>> > You suspect wrong. regarding the huge variance of jesus' birth,
>> > consider 1) Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, which say he was
>> > born in the days of King Herod. Herod died in
>> > 4 BC, so jesus cant have been born arfter 4BC
>> > 2) Luke 2:1, which says jesus' birth was while
>> > Caesar Augustus was taxing, which was when
>> > Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Quirinius
>> > became governer of Syria in 6AD
>> > As you can see from readingthe bible and knowing some elementry
>> > history the bible has a ten year variance (at least) on when jesus was
>> > born (and Luke even contradicts himself)
>>
>> > How about the contradictions of jesus ancestry? (ignoring that whole
>> > father is god thing). Its a bit long to type out, but look at:
>> > 1) Matthew 1:6-16
>> > 2) Luke 3:21-31
>> > 3) 1Chronicles 3:10-16
>> > Some similarities - a lot of differences.
>>
>> > Wanna carry on?
> [snip]
>> Hmmm, nothing about giving one's daughters up to rape.
> #
> # Firstly, my reply appears to have gone missing. I quoted what Lot
> # said Genesis 19:8 "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not
> # known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to
> # them as is good in your eyes" And please dont plead ignorance of what
> # 'knowing' means: you'll embarrass youself.
> # This is the man who was called "just" in 2 Peter 2:7-8.
> #
>
> Yup
> History is full of things that were considered acceptable at the time
> but are unacceptable today
> Your problem is that one of the factors that made such things unacceptable
> today are the very teachings your denigrate by nitpicking minutiae in the
> telling.
>
>
> # Secondly, I note you avoid engaging with the other examples of
> # biblical contradictions that I present: namely jesus' birth and
> # ancestry.
>
> And how does such minutiae nits diminish
> 1) The teachings from Jesus
> 2) All the benefis past and present of the Judeo-Christian ethics
>
> By the way, maybe you should read what Blaise Pascal had to say about
> whether one should believe or not in God.
>
>
>

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

Gray Ghost
July 1st 09, 09:56 PM
Lookout > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:41:05 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
>>wrote in message
...
>>On Jul 1, 3:26 pm, (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>> Misanthropic Curmudgeon >
>>> wrote
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Jul 1, 11:41 am, (Gray Ghost)
>>> > wrote:
>>> > [snip]
>>> >> > The version that picks and chooses which part to beleive when
>>> >> > contradiction arise, like when jesus was born, the contradictions in
>>> >> > most of the crucifiction myth, and the contadictions about his
>>> >> > ancestry?
>>>
>>> >> > That 'modern Christinaity'??
>>>
>>> >> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically
>>> >> says each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that much is out
>>> >> of context.
>>>
>>> > You suspect wrong. regarding the huge variance of jesus' birth,
>>> > consider 1) Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, which say he was
>>> > born in the days of King Herod. Herod died in
>>> > 4 BC, so jesus cant have been born arfter 4BC
>>> > 2) Luke 2:1, which says jesus' birth was while
>>> > Caesar Augustus was taxing, which was when
>>> > Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Quirinius
>>> > became governer of Syria in 6AD
>>> > As you can see from readingthe bible and knowing some elementry
>>> > history the bible has a ten year variance (at least) on when jesus was
>>> > born (and Luke even contradicts himself)
>>>
>>> > How about the contradictions of jesus ancestry? (ignoring that whole
>>> > father is god thing). Its a bit long to type out, but look at:
>>> > 1) Matthew 1:6-16
>>> > 2) Luke 3:21-31
>>> > 3) 1Chronicles 3:10-16
>>> > Some similarities - a lot of differences.
>>>
>>> > Wanna carry on?
>>[snip]
>>> Hmmm, nothing about giving one's daughters up to rape.
>>#
>># Firstly, my reply appears to have gone missing. I quoted what Lot
>># said Genesis 19:8 "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not
>># known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to
>># them as is good in your eyes" And please dont plead ignorance of what
>># 'knowing' means: you'll embarrass youself.
>># This is the man who was called "just" in 2 Peter 2:7-8.
>>#
>>
>>Yup
>> History is full of things that were considered acceptable at the time
>>but are unacceptable today
>>Your problem is that one of the factors that made such things unacceptable
>>today are the very teachings your denigrate by nitpicking minutiae in the
>>telling.
>>
>>
>># Secondly, I note you avoid engaging with the other examples of
>># biblical contradictions that I present: namely jesus' birth and
>># ancestry.
>>
>>And how does such minutiae nits diminish
>>1) The teachings from Jesus
>>2) All the benefis past and present of the Judeo-Christian ethics
>>
>>By the way, maybe you should read what Blaise Pascal had to say about
>>whether one should believe or not in God.
>>
> Prove there is a god. ANY god.
>

Aside from a personal introduction, what would you consider proof? IOW is
your mind open enough to entertain at least the possibility. If not any
"proof" tendered would be a fool's errand.

Oh and BTW, it's called Faith.

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

Gray Ghost
July 1st 09, 10:08 PM
Lookout > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:39:57 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
>>wrote in message
...
>>On Jul 1, 11:41 am, (Gray Ghost)
>>wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> >> >>> - the earth is flat,
>>> >> >>> - hares chew cud (like cows do)
>>
>>> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically
>>> says each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that much is out
>>> of context.
>>#
>># Oh, OK, here's more. I'm having fun!
>>#
>># The bible claims the earth is flat. Not directly, or course, but
>># consider:
>>
>>
>>
>>DOH !
>> And at the time, most people believed that
>> And they really had not evidence to the contrary
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
> "This belief contrasts with the view introduced around the 4th century
> BC by natural philosophers of Classical Greece that the Earth is
> spherical."
>
> "Recent scholarship, particularly since the 1990s,[3] has shown that
> "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history
> of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed
> that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a
> spherical earth."
>
> So are you lying or just wrong?

Have you stopped molesting your children yet?

So you are asserting that in a time where people rarely traveled more than 20
miles from thier birthplace, with no mass communications that a notion that
is not easily observed was widespread?

>
>>#
>># Face it, your bible is a mash of lies, errors, contradictions, #
>>mythology and fantasy. #
>>
>>Face it, your intellectual dishonesty vilifies people because at the time
>>of the writing of the bible, their knowledge base was less than it is
>>now. What you are doing is dishones and stupidly arrogant
>>But hey, that seems to be common coin among your type
>>
> The bible is nothing but a fairy tale
>

So then what is Marx and other Liberal dogma, revealed truth?

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

SaPeIsMa
July 2nd 09, 01:49 AM
"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
wrote in message
...
On Jul 2, 4:41 am, "SaPeIsMa" > wrote:
[snip]
> maybe you should read what Blaise Pascal had to say about
> whether one should believe or not in God.
#
# 'Pascals wager' (that the concequnces of being right is great and the
# concequnces of being wriong are horrid) is an argumenst for trying to
# believe in god. It is not an argument that a god exists.

Well DOH !
That's EXACTLY what I wrote...
Time to have that reading and comprehension impairment addressed


# Further, one has to hope that one picks the right god: there are
# thousands of them that have been suggested by all the various
# religious cults about.


And ?
Pascal was talking about the Judeo-Christian God
Only an idiot would suggest otherwise.

SaPeIsMa
July 2nd 09, 01:52 AM
"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
wrote in message
...
On Jul 2, 4:22 am, "SaPeIsMa" > wrote:
> "Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
> wrote in
> ...
> On Jul 1, 11:41 am, (Gray Ghost)
> wrote:
> [snip]> > The version that picks and chooses which part to beleive when
> > > contradiction arise, like when jesus was born, the contradictions in
> > > most of the crucifiction myth, and the contadictions about his
> > > ancestry?
>
> > > That 'modern Christinaity'??
>
> > First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically
> > says each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that
> > much is out of context.
>
> #
> # You suspect wrong. regarding the huge variance of jesus' birth,
> # consider
> # 1) Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, which say he was
> # born in the days of King Herod. Herod died in
> # 4 BC, so jesus cant have been born arfter 4BC
> # 2) Luke 2:1, which says jesus' birth was while
> # Caesar Augustus was taxing, which was when
> # Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Quirinius
> # became governer of Syria in 6AD
> # As you can see from readingthe bible and knowing some elementry
> # history the bible has a ten year variance (at least) on when jesus was
> # born (and Luke even contradicts himself)
> #
> # How about the contradictions of jesus ancestry? (ignoring that whole
> # father is god thing). Its a bit long to type out, but look at:
> # 1) Matthew 1:6-16
> # 2) Luke 3:21-31
> # 3) 1Chronicles 3:10-16
> # Some similarities - a lot of differences.
> #
> # Wanna carry on?
> # #
>
> Why ?
> It takes a fool to nitpick about minutiae.
#
# You call it minutiae, but fail to see that these poinst are all key in
# the jesus myth: if the bible is wrong and/orcontradicts itself on
# known facts, how can it be held as an aurthority on anything more?
#
# Given the bible cant even get the cruxification story right, (with
# contrdictions between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), then its in a
# pretty sorry state.

It IS minutiae
You are an idiot to claim that the Bible is supposed to be 100% correct
It's a false, strawman argument anyway, because most theologists do NOT
claim it to be 100 accurate

Different people will see the same events from a different perspective
To expect each one to tell you EXACTLY the same story is just stupid.



> It also takes a fool to claim, the the lesson taught
> should be ignored because some of the history
> behind the lesson is in error.
#
# The Dune Trilogy also has some good lessions in it, too. It does not
# make it anymore factual.
#

And ?
That seems to be your problem
You either argue for factuality or not'
You can't have it both ways

SaPeIsMa
July 2nd 09, 03:35 AM
"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
wrote in message
...
On Jul 2, 6:39 am, "SaPeIsMa" > wrote:
[snip]
> at the time of the writing of the bible, their knowledge
> base was less than it is now.
#
#This is the bible which is "inerrent", a "guide for our times" and
# "perfect gods word"
#

Those are your words, not mine
I feel no need to be bound by your definitions..
Maybe that's your problem, you're too stupid to think for yourself, and
therefore you rely blindly on what other people say

#
# This is the bible that you claim was written by god? Limited? Flawed
# in some way?

Since I have made no such claims, your problem is that you're projections
are meaningless to me..

SaPeIsMa
July 2nd 09, 03:44 AM
"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
wrote in message
...
On Jul 2, 9:08 am, (Gray Ghost)
wrote:
[snip]
> So you are asserting that in a time where people rarely
> traveled more than 20 miles from thier birthplace, with
> no mass communications that a notion that
> is not easily observed was widespread?
#
# You appear to be the one suugesting that the bible was wriiten by god,
# inspiring the hand of man.
#

The ONLY one making such assertions so far is you..
And you are making these ignorant assertions to support your other ignorant
claims


#
#Did your god not know the earth was not flat, or did he lie to the
# 'men'?

Since you have NO CLUE as to the beliefs of anyone here, your presumption is
the basis of your deep confusion...

rest of stupid projections snipped...

Gray Ghost
July 2nd 09, 04:31 AM
Misanthropic Curmudgeon > wrote
in :

> On Jul 2, 9:08*am, (Gray Ghost)
> wrote:
> [snip]
>> So you are asserting that in a time where people rarely
>> traveled more than 20 miles from thier birthplace, with
>> no mass communications that a notion that
>> is not easily observed was widespread?
>
> You appear to be the one suugesting that the bible was wriiten by god,
> inspiring the hand of man.
> Did your god not know the earth was not flat, or did he lie to the
> 'men'?

i would suggest it was written in a manner that was understandable to the
greatest number of people. If people had no concept of a spherical planet
orbiting a minor sun in a smallish galaxy it makes little sense to try and
talk in those terms.

>
> What else did your god lie about? We know your god lies and deceives.
> see the following:
> 1Kings 22:23, "Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying
> spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken
> evil concerning thee."

I have already determined that you take these quotes out of context. Much of
what is in the bible is very contextual. Your quote about Lot giving his
daughter up to be raped yet knowing nothing of the story or even where it
occured or why tells me you are the deceiver twisting words out of context.
The sure sign of a small minded bigot.

Don't you think it odd that I can tolerate and get along with atheists yet
somehow believers frighhten you to the point you slander them and wich them
harm.

>
> 2 Chronicles 18:22 "Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying
> spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets."
>
> Jeremiah 4:10 "Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this
> people."
>
> Jeremiah 20:7 "O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived."
>
> Ezekiel 14:9 "And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a
> thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."
>
> 2Thessalonians 2:11 "For this cause God shall send them strong
> delusion, that they should believe a lie. "
>
>
>



--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

Gray Ghost
July 2nd 09, 04:40 AM
Misanthropic Curmudgeon > wrote
in :

> On Jul 2, 4:19*am, (Gray Ghost)
> wrote:
>> Misanthropic Curmudgeon >
>> wrote
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 1, 3:26*pm, (Gray Ghost)
>> > wrote:
>> >> Misanthropic Curmudgeon >
>> >> wrote
>> >>
>> >> m:
>>
>> >> > On Jul 1, 11:41*am, (Gray Ghost)
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > [snip]
>> >> >> > The version that picks and chooses which part to beleive when
>> >> >> > contradiction arise, like when jesus was born, the
>> >> >> > contradictions in most of the crucifiction myth, and the
>> >> >> > contadictions about his ancestry?
>>
>> >> >> > That 'modern Christinaity'??
>>
>> >> >> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that
>> >> >> specifically says each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect
>> >> >> that much is out of context.
>>
>> >> > You suspect wrong. *regarding the huge variance of jesus' birth,
>> >> > consider 1) *Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5, which say he was
>> >> > * * *born in the days of King Herod. *Herod died in
>> >> > * * *4 BC, so jesus cant have been born arfter 4BC
>> >> > 2) Luke 2:1, which says jesus' birth was while
>> >> > * * Caesar Augustus was taxing, which was when
>> >> > * * Cyrenius was governor of Syria. *Quirinius
>> >> > * * became governer of Syria in 6AD
>> >> > As you can see from readingthe bible and knowing some elementry
>> >> > history the bible has a ten year variance (at least) on when jesus
>> >> > was born (and Luke even contradicts himself)
>>
>> >> > How about the contradictions of jesus ancestry? (ignoring that
>> >> > whole father is god thing). *Its a bit long to type out, but look
>> >> > at: 1) Matthew 1:6-16
>> >> > 2) Luke 3:21-31
>> >> > 3) 1Chronicles 3:10-16
>> >> > Some similarities - a lot of differences.
>>
>> >> > Wanna carry on?
>> > [snip]
>> >> Hmmm, nothing about giving one's daughters up to rape.
>>
>> > Firstly, my reply appears to have gone missing. *I quoted what Lot
>> > said Genesis 19:8 *"Behold now, I have two daughters which have not
>> > known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to
>> > them as is good in your eyes" *And please dont plead ignorance of what
>> > 'knowing' means: you'll embarrass youself.
>> > This is the man who was called "just" in 2 Peter 2:7-8.
>>
>> As I thought, this is wholly out of context, in more than one way.
>> Who was Lot,
>
> Well, he is the guy whose wife was alledgedly turned into a pillar of
> salt, has pretty much a whole chapter dedicated to him, and was later
> called "just" in the New Testament. By the New Testemenst noting he
> was "just" it condones his offering up his daughters to a mob as a
> "just" action.

At this time of his life Lot was not a particularly just man. If you knew the
city he lieved in and why he was able to live there you might know that.

>
>
>> where did this take place,
>
> It was allegeded to have teken place outside his home. That is
> obvious from the passage.

What city did it occur in?

>
>
>> what was the likelyhood that a group of homosexuals
>> would even want to "know" females?.
>
> What makes you think they were homosexuals: especiallay when they made
> thier sexual assault intentions clear.

If you knew the city he lieved in you might know the answer.

>
>
>
>> In any case, Lot was not a particulaly "just" man at
>> the time of this occurence.
>
> 2 Peter 2:7-8 disagrees with you.

Are you so stupid to read that verse and not be able to grasp the context?

BTW tell us what the rest of Genesis 19 says. The context matters, your
slander does not.

>
>
>
>



--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

Chris Malcolm
July 6th 09, 02:16 PM
In misc.fitness.weights Gray Ghost > wrote:
> Lookout > wrote in
> :

>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:39:57 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
>>>wrote in message
...
>>>On Jul 1, 11:41 am, (Gray Ghost)
>>>wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>> >> >>> - the earth is flat,
>>>> >> >>> - hares chew cud (like cows do)
>>>
>>>> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically
>>>> says each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that much is out
>>>> of context.
>>>#
>>># Oh, OK, here's more. I'm having fun!
>>>#
>>># The bible claims the earth is flat. Not directly, or course, but
>>># consider:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>DOH !
>>> And at the time, most people believed that
>>> And they really had not evidence to the contrary
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
>> "This belief contrasts with the view introduced around the 4th century
>> BC by natural philosophers of Classical Greece that the Earth is
>> spherical."
>>
>> "Recent scholarship, particularly since the 1990s,[3] has shown that
>> "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history
>> of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed
>> that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a
>> spherical earth."
>>
>> So are you lying or just wrong?

> Have you stopped molesting your children yet?

> So you are asserting that in a time where people rarely traveled more than 20
> miles from thier birthplace, with no mass communications that a notion that
> is not easily observed was widespread?

For thousands of years it's been easily observable by any sailor.

--
Chris Malcolm

SaPeIsMa
July 7th 09, 02:04 PM
"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
wrote in message
...
On Jul 2, 2:44 pm, "SaPeIsMa" > wrote:
> "Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
[snip]
> #Did your god not know the earth was not flat, or did he lie to the
> # 'men'?
>
> Since you have NO CLUE as to the beliefs of anyone here, your presumption
> is
> the basis of your deep confusion...
>
> rest of stupid projections snipped...
#
# You dont like it when your bible disproves your biblical beliefs, do
# you?

"my" bible ??
Still projecting like a fool..

SaPeIsMa
July 7th 09, 02:05 PM
"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
wrote in message
...
On Jul 2, 2:35 pm, "SaPeIsMa" > wrote:
> "Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
> wrote in
> ...
> On Jul 2, 6:39 am, "SaPeIsMa" > wrote:
> [snip]> at the time of the writing of the bible, their knowledge
> > base was less than it is now.
>
> #
> #This is the bible which is "inerrent", a "guide for our times" and
> # "perfect gods word"
> #
>
> Those are your words, not mine
> I feel no need to be bound by your definitions..
> Maybe that's your problem, you're too stupid to think
> for yourself, and therefore you rely blindly on what
> other people say
#
# So is yor bible inerrant, or not? - A simple question to frame the
# discussion.

Since you are the idiot projecting that it's "my" bible, I really don't feel
a need to feed YOUR strawman..

SaPeIsMa
July 7th 09, 02:07 PM
"Chris Malcolm" > wrote in message
...
> In misc.fitness.weights Gray Ghost >
> wrote:
>> Lookout > wrote in
>> :
>
>>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:39:57 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
>>>>wrote in message
...
>>>>On Jul 1, 11:41 am, (Gray Ghost)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>[snip]
>>>>> >> >>> - the earth is flat,
>>>>> >> >>> - hares chew cud (like cows do)
>>>>
>>>>> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically
>>>>> says each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that much is out
>>>>> of context.
>>>>#
>>>># Oh, OK, here's more. I'm having fun!
>>>>#
>>>># The bible claims the earth is flat. Not directly, or course, but
>>>># consider:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>DOH !
>>>> And at the time, most people believed that
>>>> And they really had not evidence to the contrary
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
>>> "This belief contrasts with the view introduced around the 4th century
>>> BC by natural philosophers of Classical Greece that the Earth is
>>> spherical."
>>>
>>> "Recent scholarship, particularly since the 1990s,[3] has shown that
>>> "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history
>>> of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed
>>> that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a
>>> spherical earth."
>>>
>>> So are you lying or just wrong?
>
>> Have you stopped molesting your children yet?
>
>> So you are asserting that in a time where people rarely traveled more
>> than 20
>> miles from thier birthplace, with no mass communications that a notion
>> that
>> is not easily observed was widespread?
>
> For thousands of years it's been easily observable by any sailor.
>

And you know this because you were a sailor then ?

Gray Ghost
July 7th 09, 04:06 PM
"SaPeIsMa" > wrote in
ernet:

>
> "Chris Malcolm" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In misc.fitness.weights Gray Ghost >
>> wrote:
>>> Lookout > wrote in
>>> :
>>
>>>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:39:57 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
>>>>>wrote in message
...
>>>>>On Jul 1, 11:41 am, (Gray Ghost)
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>> >> >>> - the earth is flat,
>>>>>> >> >>> - hares chew cud (like cows do)
>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all cite bible version chapter and verse that specifically
>>>>>> says each thing, than I can comment on it. I suspect that much is out
>>>>>> of context.
>>>>>#
>>>>># Oh, OK, here's more. I'm having fun!
>>>>>#
>>>>># The bible claims the earth is flat. Not directly, or course, but
>>>>># consider:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>DOH !
>>>>> And at the time, most people believed that
>>>>> And they really had not evidence to the contrary
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
>>>> "This belief contrasts with the view introduced around the 4th century
>>>> BC by natural philosophers of Classical Greece that the Earth is
>>>> spherical."
>>>>
>>>> "Recent scholarship, particularly since the 1990s,[3] has shown that
>>>> "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history
>>>> of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed
>>>> that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a
>>>> spherical earth."
>>>>
>>>> So are you lying or just wrong?
>>
>>> Have you stopped molesting your children yet?
>>
>>> So you are asserting that in a time where people rarely traveled more
>>> than 20
>>> miles from thier birthplace, with no mass communications that a notion
>>> that is not easily observed was widespread?
>>
>> For thousands of years it's been easily observable by any sailor.
>>
>
> And you know this because you were a sailor then ?
>
>

And most people weren't sailors.

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

SaPeIsMa
July 8th 09, 09:17 AM
"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
wrote in message
...
On Jul 8, 1:05 am, "SaPeIsMa" > wrote:
> "Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
> wrote in
> ...
> On Jul 2, 2:35 pm, "SaPeIsMa" > wrote:
>
> > "Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
> > wrote in
> > ...
> > On Jul 2, 6:39 am, "SaPeIsMa" > wrote:
> > [snip]> at the time of the writing of the bible, their knowledge
> > > base was less than it is now.
>
> > #
> > #This is the bible which is "inerrent", a "guide for our times" and
> > # "perfect gods word"
> > #
>
> > Those are your words, not mine
> > I feel no need to be bound by your definitions..
> > Maybe that's your problem, you're too stupid to think
> > for yourself, and therefore you rely blindly on what
> > other people say
>
> #
> # So is yor bible inerrant, or not? - A simple question to frame the
> # discussion.
>
> Since you are the idiot projecting that it's "my" bible, I really don't
> feel
> a need to feed YOUR strawman..
#
# I'm trying to clarify the error you claim I made:

You DID make stupid allegations about what I believe

# - you believe the stories in this bible, dont you?

Which stories are you talking about ?

# - you believe this bible is errent, dont you?

What makes you PRESUME I do ?

#
# If you are defending this bible, but cant or wont clarify these point
# from which we can frame the discussion, then ...

Where did I "defend this bible" OTHER than in your imagination ?
Feel free to quote where I did so.

SaPeIsMa
July 9th 09, 03:16 AM
"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
wrote in message
...
On Jul 8, 8:17 pm, "SaPeIsMa" > wrote:
> "Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
[snip]
> # - you believe the stories in this bible, dont you?
>
> Which stories are you talking about ?

All of them.


> # - you believe this bible is errent, dont you?
>
> What makes you PRESUME I do ?


> # If you are defending this bible, but cant or wont clarify these point
> # from which we can frame the discussion, then ...
>
> Where did I "defend this bible" OTHER than in your imagination ?
> Feel free to quote where I did so.
#
# Well, I got that impression from when you said in
#
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/3180a6916fb0923e?dmode=source
# "And how does such minutiae nits diminish
# 1) The teachings from Jesus
# 2) All the benefis past and present of the Judeo-Christian ethics
# By the way, maybe you should read what Blaise Pascal had to say about
# whether one should believe or not in God."
#
# If I am wrong, all you have to do is deny jesus.
#

Well, there's your problem dummy
You don't have to "believe" in Jesus to accept that the teachings ascribed
to him are worthwile
Similarly you don't have to believe in the bible to recognize that the
Judeo-Christian ehics have led us to the Democratic principles of the
Western countries

You are wrong, and I have no need to deny anything to prove you wrong

Harry Brogan
July 9th 09, 11:32 AM
An angel on earth??? I DON'T THINK SO....

AFTER he was aquitted on the molesting charges he said in a television
interview that he di, IN FACT, have young boys sleep with him in HIS
BED. What the **** is WRONG with THIS picture????

If you think they were there just "sleeping" then you are sorely
mistamen. If one of the "average" joes out there did this SAME THING
they would be LOCKED UP INDEFINITELY. The ONLY reason he got away
with it is M O N E Y...plain and simple.

To even MAKE and attempt to defend this is LUDICROUS!!!!!

He was a piece of **** PEDOPHILE, CHILD MOLESTING SON-OF-A-BITCH.

SaPeIsMa
July 9th 09, 02:33 PM
"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
wrote in message
...
On Jul 9, 2:16 pm, "SaPeIsMa" > wrote:
> "Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
> wrote in
> ...
> On Jul 8, 8:17 pm, "SaPeIsMa" > wrote:
>
> > "Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
> [snip]
> > # - you believe the stories in this bible, dont you?
>
> > Which stories are you talking about ?
>
> All of them.
>
> > # - you believe this bible is errent, dont you?
>
> > What makes you PRESUME I do ?
> > # If you are defending this bible, but cant or wont clarify these point
> > # from which we can frame the discussion, then ...
>
> > Where did I "defend this bible" OTHER than in your imagination ?
> > Feel free to quote where I did so.
>
> #
> # Well, I got that impression from when you said in
> #http://groups.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/3180a6916fb09...
> # "And how does such minutiae nits diminish
> # 1) The teachings from Jesus
> # 2) All the benefis past and present of the Judeo-Christian ethics
> # By the way, maybe you should read what Blaise Pascal had to say about
> # whether one should believe or not in God."
> #
> # If I am wrong, all you have to do is deny jesus.
> #
>
> Well, there's your problem dummy
> You don't have to "believe" in Jesus to accept that the teachings ascribed
> to him are worthwile
#
# There are good bits of wisdom in Dune and Star Trek, too. Your point?
#

How long has Dune been around ?
How long have the Testaments been around ?
Something you keep missing
One has to wonder if it's intentional stupidity, or all natural ?




> Similarly you don't have to believe in the bible to recognize that the
> Judeo-Christian ehics have led us to the Democratic principles of the
> Western countries
#
# I think you'll find democratic principles have far more foundation in
# ancient Greece than a heirachical "all-worship-the-great-leader" death-
# cult like christianity.
#

BZZZZT
Just because you can find a preliminary attempt at Democracy among the
Ancient Greeks, changes NOTHING to the fact that it was the evolution of
thinkers under the Judeo-Christian ethic, that made MODERN Democracy
possible and feasible.

#
# Indeed, the ideals of democracy were being applied in Greek and Indian
# city-states 500 years before this jesus-myth-chap staps on his
# sandals. Even the very word 'democracy' comes from Greek. I think you
# need to enroll in a basic histiory lession!

More like you do
You can recite the events, but your comprehension of them and their effect
is NIL in your case.

#
# Your claims that modern western democracies are attribituable to the
# christian cult are laughable: empowering people has been actively
# opposed by most cults, eg the catholic church.

And there's another source of your abussal ignorance.
You are UNABLE to make simple distinctions because of your prejudices, and
your blinkered view of historical evolution of modern thought.

You're a clear example of the failings of modern education
You are unable to follow a thought past a superficial view of it.

SaPeIsMa
July 10th 09, 04:36 AM
"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
wrote in message
...
On Jul 10, 1:33 am, "SaPeIsMa" > wrote:
[snip]
> > You don't have to "believe" in Jesus to accept that the teachings
> > ascribed
> > to him are worthwile
>
> #
> # There are good bits of wisdom in Dune and Star Trek, too. Your point?
> #
>
> How long has Dune been around ?
> How long have the Testaments been around ?
#
# If age is a requsite for wisdom, then, consider Homer's Odyssey or The
# Iliad. They contain some wise words and refer to Zeus: the wise words
# does lot mean Zeus is any more real or that we should adhere to it.

And yet YOU are the IDIOT who PRESUMES that if someone considers the value
of the Judeo-Christian ethic, then then must therefore adhere to all kinds
of stupid beliefs about the Bible and Jesus.
Too bad you're not bright enough to see youe hypocritical double-standard.


> > Similarly you don't have to believe in the bible to recognize that the
> > Judeo-Christian ehics have led us to the Democratic principles of the
> > Western countries
>
> # I think you'll find democratic principles have far more foundation in
> # ancient Greece than a heirachical "all-worship-the-great-leader" death-
> # cult like christianity.
> #
>
> BZZZZT
> Just because you can find a preliminary attempt at Democracy among the
> Ancient Greeks, changes NOTHING to the fact that it was the evolution of
> thinkers under the Judeo-Christian ethic, that made MODERN Democracy
> possible and feasible.
#
# A 'preliminary attempt'?? Now you are taking the ****!
#

Greek Democracy qualifies as a "preliminary attempt" for all kinds of
reasons
Too bad that you don't have historical perspective
(Oh wait, that would require a modicum of intelligence)



> You're a clear example of the failings of modern education
> You are unable to follow a thought past a superficial view of it.
#
# This is coming from the person who continues to refuse to address two
# simple questions:
# - is the bible inerrent
# - do you beleive in jesus.
# For me, the answer is an unequivical "no".


Good for you
Since my beliefs are:
1) None of YOUR business
2) Irrelevant to the issue
I have no need to addres the questions

#
# Further, you appear unable to disentangle correlation with causation.
# You appear to have swallowed the modern-churhes propaganda that they
# somehow facillitated scientific and emancipationary progress, when the
# reality is these advances were done at great personal cost to their
# proponents - and often under persecution of the christain church.
# Consider Gallelio, Darwin and now stem-cell research. Consider the
# churchs stance on the reformation, the (english) monarchy,
# homosexuals, or women in the preisthood.
#

LOL
1) My degree is in Mathematical Engineering
I believe that my grasp of both corelation and causality are
problably far better than yours could ever hope to be
2) Corelation and causation are not applicable in this case, and is just
you trying to use big words whose meaning you do not comprehend to cover for
your ignorance on matters such as
a) Why Gallileo was actually censored by the Church
b) Darwin did not have issues with any Church for publishing his work
c) The Church opposes Stem-cell research which uses foetuses since in
their view that is akin to murder
d) The Church has no problems with stem-cell research using other
material
I could continue to demonstrate you abyssal ignorance
But why bother ?
No matter how much matter you stuff down a black hole, it will still remain
a black hole...



#
# To then suggest my view is superficial is quite disengenious and
# hypocritical of you.
#

Coming from an expert like you, that is most flattering

SaPeIsMa
July 17th 09, 04:02 AM
"Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
wrote in message
...
On Jul 10, 3:36 pm, "SaPeIsMa" > wrote:
> "Misanthropic Curmudgeon" >
> wrote in
> ...
[snip]
> > # There are good bits of wisdom in Dune and Star Trek, too. Your point?
> > #
>
> > How long has Dune been around ?
> > How long have the Testaments been around ?
>
> # If age is a requsite for wisdom, then, consider Homer's Odyssey or The
> # Iliad. They contain some wise words and refer to Zeus: the wise words
> # does lot mean Zeus is any more real or that we should adhere to it.
>
> And yet YOU are the IDIOT who PRESUMES that if someone
> considers the value of the Judeo-Christian ethic, then then
> must therefore adhere to all kinds of stupid beliefs about the
> Bible and Jesus.
#
# The "stupid beliefs" I have mentioned are biblical references. If you
# dont like what the bible says, then you might want to reflect on the
# value you appear to place in it.

You clearly are unable to read for comprehension
Explains why YOU put all kinds of value judgement on a book




> > > Similarly you don't have to believe in the bible to recognize that the
> > > Judeo-Christian ehics have led us to the Democratic principles of the
> > > Western countries
>
> > # I think you'll find democratic principles have far more foundation in
> > # ancient Greece than a heirachical "all-worship-the-great-leader"
> > death-
> > # cult like christianity.
> > #
>
> > BZZZZT
> > Just because you can find a preliminary attempt at Democracy among the
> > Ancient Greeks, changes NOTHING to the fact that it was the evolution of
> > thinkers under the Judeo-Christian ethic, that made MODERN Democracy
> > possible and feasible.
>
> #
> # A 'preliminary attempt'?? Now you are taking the ****!
> #
>
> Greek Democracy qualifies as a "preliminary attempt" for all kinds of
> reasons
#
# Which you dont/cant/wont list:
# 1) Because to do so would cause a conflict in your
# value system and the sanitised veiw of scripture
# that you have.

I'll give you the two main ones.
1) It's pretty well the first one on record
2) The subsequent versions attempted to counteract it's shortcomings..
And NO, the fact that the Athenian model of Democracy was a preliminary
attempt, and suffered great limitatons, does NOT conflict with my value
systemsm or your imagined view of how I see scripture
Now, don't you just have having your ignorance and prejudice booted up your
ass ?
At least you make it easy to demonstrate that you are an ignorant,
prejudiced, pedantic, idiot.


# 2) Because you are wrong.

Go ahead and prove it.
Take as many screens as, you need
It's put-up or shut-up time, boyo...
And don't confuse your projections and prejudices with fact



> > You're a clear example of the failings of modern education
> > You are unable to follow a thought past a superficial view of it.
>
> #
> # This is coming from the person who continues to refuse to address two
> # simple questions:
> # - is the bible inerrent
> # - do you beleive in jesus.
> # For me, the answer is an unequivical "no".
>
> Good for you
> Since my beliefs are:
> 1) None of YOUR business
> 2) Irrelevant to the issue
> I have no need to addres the questions

But they are relevant to the issue: your insistence in captialising
'bible' indicates you place a high degree of reverence on it -
defending it not from logioc but blind (programmed?) faith.




> # Further, you appear unable to disentangle correlation with causation.
> # You appear to have swallowed the modern-churhes propaganda that they
> # somehow facillitated scientific and emancipationary progress, when the
> # reality is these advances were done at great personal cost to their
> # proponents - and often under persecution of the christain church.
> # Consider Gallelio, Darwin and now stem-cell research. Consider the
> # churchs stance on the reformation, the (english) monarchy,
> # homosexuals, or women in the preisthood.
> #
>
> LOL
> 1) My degree is in Mathematical Engineering

Do you want a '****ing contest" on this point?
Is this going to be like 'internet bench-press weights'?


> a) Why Gallileo was actually censored by the Church

For dissent. The church ordered him not to "hold or defend" the idea
that the Earth was not the center of the universe like the bible says
it was, and the idea that the earth moves around the Sun.
He was tried for heresy in 1633, found guilty, and his imprisonment
commuted to house arrest due to his position in society and contacts.




> b) Darwin did not have issues with any Church for publishing his work

Darwin was called a heretic, the Anglican church protested (and was
behind a move to limit any honours he was to receive) and the catholic
church denied it for decades before accepting it.



> c) The Church opposes Stem-cell research which uses
> foetuses since in their view that is akin to murder

If a few cells is murder, then they best start mourning their
dandruff.