Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 13 topics

Atheism vs Christianity
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Afghanistan
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/544ee5e2660c0f01?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 4:38 pm
From: Woodbridge

Christian Chris should go to Iraq

On Dec 1, 4:37 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> truthfully, it sounds animalistic to me. People who brag about animals
> exploding. It's a sentient being, despite what you learned on Star
> Trek.
> And to top this off the individual has lived through and experience
> combat in a particularly harrowing war theater. And still he finds a
> thrill in blowing something to bits. Truly amazing. And disgusting.
>
> On Nov 29, 6:33 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > According to Star Trek animals are not sentient, ( I think that is the
> > correct word ). The pink mist of a varmint exploding at three hundred
> > yards is an incredible rush :-)
>
> > On Nov 29, 1:16 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 5:54 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 28, 8:06 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.co m> wrote:> well it remains to be seen what the person meant by denigrating the
> > > > > M16. You said no one aims in combat. So what's the benefit of an M16
> > > > > in combat then?
>
> > > > 820 rounds per minute IIRC, flat trajectory, damn thing used to jam a
> > > > lot and wear out barrels.
>
> > > > > do you experience anything in the way of compassion for the animals
> > > > > you kill?
>
> > > > No? Why would I? Varmints are varmints, Deer are large rats.
>
> > > So explain to me why humans are entitled to compassion then. Why
> > > isn't a person just a "grown rat"?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hello
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6d065aab595d7d5a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 4:41 pm
From: Woodbridge

Tertuliian says here he IS Christian.
Why did Tertullian post that he is BECOMING Christian and change it?
Tertullian VERY SIMILAR to Christian LimaToo

On Dec 1, 4:30 pm, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 3:31 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello, I am a Christian. An atheist friend of mine is here in Simi
> > Valley, California and challenged me to post here.
>
> > He's quite sure that I will be banned because of my education in
> > religious antiquity, so I accepted the challenge.
>
> > We're visiting a friend. Tomorrow, we're both going to separate
> > directions.
>
> Thanks for taking the challenge. Liam is a guy who posted here, but
> was banned. He's a friend of mine from Kansas.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 4:55 pm
From: Tertullian

On Dec 1, 4:41 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> Tertuliian says here he IS Christian.
> Why did Tertullian post that he is BECOMING Christian and change it?
> Tertullian VERY SIMILAR to Christian LimaToo

If Liam is a Christian, yep we're brothers. I was an atheist not long
ago, but now a Christian.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 5:18 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> Hello, I am a Christian. An atheist friend of mine is here in Simi
> Valley, California and challenged me to post here.
>
> He's quite sure that I will be banned because of my education in
> religious antiquity, so I accepted the challenge.

Where in the bloody hell did you (or he) get the idea that was a bannable
offense? I cannot fathom your (or his) thought process.

>
>
> We're visiting a friend. Tomorrow, we're both going to separate
> directions.
>
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Congratulations
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/d322fa2af711303a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 4:42 pm
From: Dev

What bad happens to the world when a Christian burns to death,
exactly?

Take flushing a public toilet as an example, if you like.

On Dec 1, 4:29 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Mate, if a person was burning, I wouldn't be hanging around
> to see if s/he was a Christian or not. I'd be in there helping to
> put out the fire. I think you condemn yourself by your own words
> and what is truly in your own self-deluded mind. I'll be happy if
> you don't return. Goodbye!
> Oh, you are an arrogant prick to condemn all atheists as being
> similar. Nothing further from the truth. Just as in Christianity -
> there are no two people who are entirely similar - you demean
> the God you claim to serve. Would s/he be so stupid as to
> make creation all the same? The last time I looked out the
> window (just now) I witnessed a huge diversity.
> Duh, go and get yourself an education - you need one, or
> the research shows you will likely develop Alzeimer's
> Disease - oops, my apologies, maybe you already have it.
> That would certainly explain your post. Enjoy your unremarkable
> life.
>
> On Dec 2, 5:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
>
> > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
>
> > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> > agnostics.
>
> > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
>
> > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> > their keyboards in their dark basements.
>
> > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
>
> > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 4:44 pm
From: Woodbridge

On Dec 1, 11:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
>
> Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> through your keyboard with every angry jab.
>
> The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> agnostics.
>
> Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
>
> Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> their keyboards in their dark basements.
>
> Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
>
> Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...

Then you are no self-respecting Christian

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 5:10 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 1, 1:19 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I mean, come on, how can you respect yourself and believe you are a
> wretched
> > sinner who deserves nothing more than an eternity in hell at the same
> time?
>
> *good* *point*
>
> But most of the time I don't buy that they really see themselves as
> sinners.

Probably not, but that belief is absolutely the core of Christianity (and
most religions, incidentally)--without that belief, the "sacrifice" of Jesus
is useless and meaningless (why do we need a savior if we're not "depraved",
as Brock so gleefully puts it). They like to say that their religion is all
about love and forgiveness and shit, but they're lying or mistaken. All that
"God's love" is pointless if we don't need it to live a good life/get into
Heaven. So, as much as the phrase "true Christian" get well-deserved flak
around here, I think you could argue that anyone who DOESN'T see himself as
a sinner isn't a "true Christian", in the sense that he does not ACTUALLY
believe the core tenets of Christianity.

>
>
> > Unless you twist the definition of "respect" extremely (which fits in
> with
> > the Christian, m.o., actually--see e.g. Christian "love").
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Zing!
> >
> > > On Dec 1, 12:57 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > <snip troll shit>
> >
> > > > > Of course, no self-respecting Christian
> >
> > > > "self-respecting Christian"--that's a good one.
> >
> > > > > would waste his time on you
> > > > > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning
> Christian...- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hopefully with Mr Bush now firmly seated in the Whitehouse, America
will enter a new era of wholesome family entertainment and the Hollywood
pornographers will be claiming unemployment
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e6ee90a2ad693f5e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 4:43 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Medusa <Medusa4303@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> ynot wrote:
>
> > When you say:
> >
> > > # Pointed profanity (this includes the words, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ
> > > - unless used reverently - Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd), or every other
> > > profane or vulgar expression however used, is forbidden.
> > >
> >
> > Do you mean this?
> >
> > >Dear hopelessly confused sucker of Satan�s cock,
> > >YOU DISTURBED HATEMONGERING FUCK! THE DARK PRINCE HAS HIS HAND FIRMLY
> > >INSERTED INTO YOUR ANUS AND IS USING YOU AS A PUPPET TO SPREAD HIS
> > >FEAR AND ODIUM. DO THE UNIVERSE A FAVOR AND END YOUR MISERABLE,
> > >DISTORTED EXISTENCE BEFORE YOUR INIQUITY SEEPS INTO AN UNSPOILED MIND.
> > >YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALLY CORRUPT VEHICLE OF HATE AND YOU ARE BEYOND
> > >REDEMPTION. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF YOU ROTTEN,
> > >UNEDUCATED, DISGUSTINGLY TAINTED GRATIFIER OF ALL THAT IS IMPURE.
> >
> >
> > Isn't this hypocrisy at its best?
>
> Exactly!
>
> Sometimes I woonder if True Cretin is just writing satire. No one
> could seriously write idocities
> like this. . .right?
>
> Or maybe I am overestinating the intelligence of the human race.

I thought we had resolved long ago that IAATC is a very poor-quality troll?
I can't remember exactly what it was he said that gave him away, but it was
clearly troll fodder.

>
>
> Medusa
>
>
> >
>

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 4:45 pm
From: Dev

ALL Christians are hypocrites. It is literally impossible for a
Christian to be anything but a hypocrite because it will always find
fault with beliefs, actions and convictions more rational than its
own.

On Dec 1, 5:11 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> Christian Borgan is BIG hypocrite
> Many Christians are hypocrites
>
> On Dec 1, 7:48 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 10:44 am, I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> > > Dear hopelessly confused sucker of Satan's cock,
> > > YOU DISTURBED HATEMONGERING FUCK! THE DARK PRINCE HAS HIS HAND FIRMLY
> > > INSERTED INTO YOUR ANUS AND IS USING YOU AS A PUPPET TO SPREAD HIS
> > > FEAR AND ODIUM. DO THE UNIVERSE A FAVOR AND END YOUR MISERABLE,
> > > DISTORTED EXISTENCE BEFORE YOUR INIQUITY SEEPS INTO AN UNSPOILED MIND.
> > > YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALLY CORRUPT VEHICLE OF HATE AND YOU ARE BEYOND
> > > REDEMPTION. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF YOU ROTTEN,
> > > UNEDUCATED, DISGUSTINGLY TAINTED GRATIFIER OF ALL THAT IS IMPURE.
>
> > Brock, you dishonest and deluded theist...
> > Where are you?
> > Why don't you tell him off the same way you tell off any atheist who
> > uses "invectives and vitriol"?
> > If atheists do it in order to propagate new atheism (according to
> > you), what does this theist do it for?
> > Why have you ignored the half dozen cases I highlighted since last
> > week or so?
> > __________________________________________
> > Whenever morality is based on theology, whenever right is made
> > dependent on divine authority, the most immoral, unjust, infamous
> > things can be justified and established.
> > -- Ludwig Feuerbach- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 4:54 pm
From: Woodbridge

This is very true
Some Christians themself say they are hypocrites and are outward nice
atleast and will help Judaist move furniture to new apartment.
So some Christians like that are SMALL hypocrites
But Borgan is BIG hypocrite because he does not accept that he is
doing hypocrisy even with PROOF like Answer_42 showed here

On Dec 1, 4:45 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> ALL Christians are hypocrites. It is literally impossible for a
> Christian to be anything but a hypocrite because it will always find
> fault with beliefs, actions and convictions more rational than its
> own.
>
> On Dec 1, 5:11 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > Christian Borgan is BIG hypocrite
> > Many Christians are hypocrites
>
> > On Dec 1, 7:48 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 30, 10:44 am, I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear hopelessly confused sucker of Satan's cock,
> > > > YOU DISTURBED HATEMONGERING FUCK! THE DARK PRINCE HAS HIS HAND FIRMLY
> > > > INSERTED INTO YOUR ANUS AND IS USING YOU AS A PUPPET TO SPREAD HIS
> > > > FEAR AND ODIUM. DO THE UNIVERSE A FAVOR AND END YOUR MISERABLE,
> > > > DISTORTED EXISTENCE BEFORE YOUR INIQUITY SEEPS INTO AN UNSPOILED MIND.
> > > > YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALLY CORRUPT VEHICLE OF HATE AND YOU ARE BEYOND
> > > > REDEMPTION. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF. KILL YOURSELF YOU ROTTEN,
> > > > UNEDUCATED, DISGUSTINGLY TAINTED GRATIFIER OF ALL THAT IS IMPURE.
>
> > > Brock, you dishonest and deluded theist...
> > > Where are you?
> > > Why don't you tell him off the same way you tell off any atheist who
> > > uses "invectives and vitriol"?
> > > If atheists do it in order to propagate new atheism (according to
> > > you), what does this theist do it for?
> > > Why have you ignored the half dozen cases I highlighted since last
> > > week or so?
> > > __________________________________________
> > > Whenever morality is based on theology, whenever right is made
> > > dependent on divine authority, the most immoral, unjust, infamous
> > > things can be justified and established.
> > > -- Ludwig Feuerbach- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Please help me understand.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/4ccde3b062522deb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 4:44 pm
From: Chris

Ruthie - do you ask God to help you and show you the truth as you
read? Yeah I can see how the bible can be confusing for a beginner (or
someone who just hasn't had someone to help them sort it all out).
Concentrate on John's Gospel and his epistles also. You're asking a
big question. Some of us have been on here for years *trying* to help
others sort it all out. It's a rather big job!

On Nov 30, 8:09 pm, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am just so confused. The bible never made sense to me. The things
> written were horrible. Revelations makes me scared. Please someone
> tell me how A god who loves us would treat us this way. Please someone
> explaine the truth about other saviors with similar stories to christ.
> I am tired of lies. I want the truth. Once someone can show me the
> truth,that the bible is true than I will ask to be saved. I have
> asked lots of times to be saved and nothing happened.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 4:47 pm
From: Chris

question - when a researcher discovers *a glitch* in a scientific
theory (and they all have them), doesn't that constitute "putting
one's mind on a shelf"? When you realize the system so many rely on is
flawed, what do you do, throw it out. NOW...I'm not stating the bible
is flawed. But when there comes a time that you don't understand
something/s, is that cause to toss it all out?

On Nov 30, 9:34 pm, Expulsive <TomAnders...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is good that you're confused - if you are not confused then you
> have put your brain on a shelf somewhere.
> Your questions are excellent but what you ask could fill a thousand
> books and, indeed, an uncountable number of books have been written on
> the questions you pose. Take a walk through a good seminary library
> and read the titles of books on just one half of a shelf. Your
> questions are not new and the number of books written indicate that
> the answers you seek have been different for different people of
> different times.
> The Bible is a book. It was written by people who sought the
> ultimate truth - God - and they failed because of their human
> limitations. Those acts that have been attributed to God were, in
> reality, human and random acts that are natural to humans and nature,
> but were BLAMED on God. God did not do those horrible things, people
> or the environment did. People did horrible things in the name of God
> because they felt that they understood God better than others. People
> blamed God for their punishment after they did stupid things, not
> unlike today when we question God as a good friend dies of Cancer when
> we created the disease with our pollution and chemicals. The Cancer
> isn't God's fault, its ours. We were given this world and one another
> to take care of and, instead, we poison and pollute everything because
> of our pride and greed.
> If you want to be saved, don't look for someone to do it for
> you. There is no magic - but there is mystery and if you want to be
> saved you need to first know yourself.
>
> On Nov 30, 11:09 pm, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I am just so confused. The bible never made sense to me. The things
> > written were horrible. Revelations makes me scared. Please someone
> > tell me how A god who loves us would treat us this way. Please someone
> > explaine the truth about other saviors with similar stories to christ.
> > I am tired of lies. I want the truth. Once someone can show me the
> > truth,that the bible is true than I will ask to be saved. I have
> > asked lots of times to be saved and nothing happened.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 4:54 pm
From: Woodbridge

Ha ha How can Ruthie as God because there is NO God?

On Dec 1, 4:44 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ruthie - do you ask God to help you and show you the truth as you
> read? Yeah I can see how the bible can be confusing for a beginner (or
> someone who just hasn't had someone to help them sort it all out).
> Concentrate on John's Gospel and his epistles also. You're asking a
> big question. Some of us have been on here for years *trying* to help
> others sort it all out. It's a rather big job!
>
> On Nov 30, 8:09 pm, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I am just so confused. The bible never made sense to me. The things
> > written were horrible. Revelations makes me scared. Please someone
> > tell me how A god who loves us would treat us this way. Please someone
> > explaine the truth about other saviors with similar stories to christ.
> > I am tired of lies. I want the truth. Once someone can show me the
> > truth,that the bible is true than I will ask to be saved. I have
> > asked lots of times to be saved and nothing happened.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 5:20 pm
From: Max

Checkers, you must be driving an automatic now, no decisions to make,
very easy, it almost tells you how to drive. Get yourself a red sports
car and learn to drive it yourself. You'll understand so much more
about cars.

Max

On Dec 2, 2:53 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 7:38 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 8:45 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 1, 6:01 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 1, 1:34 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 1, 6:09 am, Ruthie <willruthie1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I am just so confused. The bible never made sense to me. The things
> > > > > > written were horrible. Revelations makes me scared. Please someone
> > > > > > tell me how A god who loves us would treat us this way. Please someone
> > > > > > explaine the truth about other saviors with similar stories to christ.
> > > > > > I am tired of lies. I want the truth. Once someone can show me the
> > > > > > truth,that the bible is true than I will ask to be saved. I have
> > > > > > asked lots of times to be saved and nothing happened.
>
> > > > > chx
> > > > > i was atheist
>
> > > > No you weren't.
>
> > > chx
> > > i can show using two examples why your'e a fool.
> > > 1) by your very own words we are all born atheist.
>
> > I didn't realize you were referring to your infancy, and I lack belief
> > that's what you meant.
>
> > > 2) you only know my pixels since Jan 07. who are you to say when i
> > > stopped being an arheist.
>
> > Since you haven't demonstrated that you know what an atheist is I say
> > you never started being an atheist, except by accident of birth - you
> > know, before your insanity had a chance to manifest itself.
>
> chx
> i must admit, i did loose touch with atheist hatred since my 20's.
> yes the atheist insantity did manifest from birth until in my 20's.
> lucky for me i managed to make the u-turn back to sanity. since then i
> am theist.
>
>
>
> > > > > and became theist without influence from people or the
> > > > > Bible. the OT of the Bible is still confusing to me. the NT is easy to
> > > > > follow. what makes you think the fools here can help you become
> > > > > theist? this choice is yours.
>
> > > > > nothing in the Bible is horrible or scary. natural 'disasters' are
> > > > > exactly that, natural.
> > > > > if i tell you a place is frequented by hurricanes every two to three
> > > > > years and you still build your house there, do you blame a 'God' when
> > > > > it is destroyed?
> > > > > if a man (your president) tells you to go shoot some Arabs, do you
> > > > > blame a God?
>
> > > > > you only find truth in the Bible when you find truth in yourself.
>
> > > > Define "truth in yourself."
>
> > > chx
> > > since you showed you're a fool, go look it up
>
> > Dodge.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tax the Fuck Out of the Churches
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/a1ae7e85b70fa1a7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 4:46 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemini7@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Turner Hayes <lordlacolith@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Chris <chrism3667@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 29, 10:40 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/separation-of-church-an...
>>> >
>>> > > Excerpts:
>>> >
>>> > > "The estimated value of untaxed church properties in the United
>>> States
>>> > > is on the order of $300 billion to $500 billion (a wide range because
>>> > > no central database collates these numbers from counties across the
>>> > > country). Undeniably, residents pay higher taxes than they would if
>>> > > religious institutions paid their share on this vast sum. Churches
>>> use
>>> > > city services, rely on good streets, are protected by the police, and
>>> > > would expect the fire department to respond to a blaze on church
>>> > > property. Yet churches do not contribute to the city accounts from
>>> > > which funds are drawn to pay for those services. Everyone else has to
>>> > > pay more to make up the difference. Across the nation tax authorities
>>> > > report that exemptions for property and buildings used for religious
>>> > > purposes contribute significantly to and are often the biggest cause
>>> > > of lost revenue."
>>> >
>>> > That revenue could end a lot of poverty and provide universal health
>>> care
>>> > for the poor, etc.
>>>
>>> Yep, turn all that money over to gov't bureaucrats, incidentally the
>>> type you complain about all the time you hypocrite.
>>>
>>> > "In a debate during the 2006 gubernatorial election, Sarah Palin
>>> >
>>> > > stated that religious leaders should be able to support a particular
>>> > > candidate from the pulpit. That is not terribly surprising coming
>>> from
>>> > > her. Her religious mentor, Pastor Kalnins, told followers they would
>>> > > go to hell if they supported Senator Kerry during the 2004
>>> > > presidential election."
>>> >
>>> > Don't you just love the sheer hypocrisy
>>>
>>> There's nothing in the law that states a minister can't support (or
>>> denounce) a particular kind of candidate. Naming them is another thing
>>> though.
>>> I think I too in a way have a fundamental problem w/churches being
>>> untaxed. I also have a fundamental problem w/caps on free speech. I do
>>> realize that lifting the privilege of remaining untaxed may have it's
>>> consequences.
>>>
>>> > > "We no longer even bother pretending otherwise: churches are
>>> political
>>> > > organizations that routinely violate IRS statutes, undermining any
>>> > > claim they might have had to property tax exemptions.
>>> >
>>> > And I hear they're challenging this restriction to support political
>>> > candidates from the pulpit on the grounds of freedom of speech.
>>>
>>> So let me see if I understand you - they're challenging the ability
>>> of churches to deliver political speech - and this represents a crisis
>>> w/regards to 1st Amendment rights???
>>>
>>> > So, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
>>> >
>>> > Tax the assholes.
>>>
>>> Just how do you go about doing exactly what you said pray tell?
>>>
>>> > > States can no longer subsidize churches and other religious
>>> > > organizations on the backs of ordinary taxpayers.
>>> >
>>> > And yet they do every time they force people to use religious based
>>> support
>>> > services and pay those services. (Eg. AA).
>>>
>>> OMG LOL. There's hardly any semblance of religiosity in AA groups
>>> these days.
>>
>>
>> The 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous:
>>
>> 1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become
>> unmanageable.
>>
>> 2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us
>> to sanity.
>>
>> 3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God
>> as we understood Him.
>>
>> 4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
>>
>> 5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact
>> nature of our wrongs.
>>
>> 6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
>>
>> 7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
>>
>> 8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make
>> amends to them all.
>>
>> 9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do
>> so would injure them or others.
>>
>> 10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly
>> admitted it.
>>
>> 11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact
>> with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us
>> and the power to carry that out.
>>
>> 12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we
>> tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles
>> in all our affairs.
>>
>> http://www.serenityfound.org/steps.html
>>
>>
>> You were saying?
>>
>>
>>> Not that I've been to one.
>>
>>
>> Wow, Chris is running his mouth off regarding some he knows nothing
>> about?!!? What a shock!!
>>
>>
>>> And no one is forced to go
>>> (accept in instance where a judge orders it I guess)
>>
>>
>> Which happens often. Although a quick Google suggests that the Supreme
>> Court has now ruled that unconstitutional, which I did not know. That's
>> good.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks Turner!
>
> When did Supreme Court rule it unconstitutional because state governments
> were still doing it up to a few months ago?
>

This article is from 1999:

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/alanon2.htm

Wikipedia also still claims that it's unconstitutional:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Court_rulings

There may have been more recent court rulings to the contrary, I haven't
done extensive research, just a quick Google.

>
> Just curious and that's excellent!
>
>
>
>> generally, it's
>>> just that the program is effective.
>>>
>>> > > Churches have
>>> > > evolved into nothing more than big businesses that strive to
>>> influence
>>> > > politics with direct pleas from the pulpit and massive contributions
>>> > > to political campaigns. Let us listen to James Madison, one of the
>>> > > most influential of our Founding Fathers and a great president. As he
>>> > > pleaded, let us impose property taxes on all religious institutions,
>>> > > and let us do so now."
>>> >
>>> > Lobby Groups should be seriously regulated if they aren't. I don't know
>>> what
>>> > the laws are regarding them.
>>>
>>> Okay and so should liberal educational foundations. Do you realize
>>> how much money is bound up in those??? Why does education become this
>>> golden calf, but feeding starving children shouldn't be privileged???
>>>
>>> > > So, anyone want to take the stupid position that everyone else should
>>> > > be forced to pay for their stupid religious institutions, which
>>> > > constantly rail and rally against those who want nothing to do with
>>> > > them?
>>> >
>>> > It's ridiculous. In Ontario, the tax payers are actually being forced
>>> to
>>> > finance the Catholic School Boards, like the Catholics don't have
>>> enough
>>> > fucking money to finance them on their own?
>>>
>>> Actually many Catholic schools are being closed I hear. I don't know
>>> where there money goes though. Maybe it's hoarded in the Vatican.
>>>
>>> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
>>> > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech
>>> and
>>> > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of
>>> speech
>>> > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis,
>>> US
>>> > Supreme Court Justice
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> Andromeda
>
>
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: AMERICA: THE POLITICS AND CULTURE OF EMPTINESS
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/736dfbdf024d78c9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 4:50 pm
From: leebert

On Dec 1, 6:35 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Hey,
> what did you want to post this crap here for, when you've
> already got it on the JLA forums? Go and stutter your
> lines somewhere else where they will be welcome.
> This is a debate forum, not a lecture theater.

Sorrry, this is abuse. Argument is two doors down.

/leebert

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Historical Precedence For Non-Violence in the Face of Irrational
Injustice
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6e541b28803148ed?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 5:00 pm
From: Drafterman

Ghandi

On Dec 1, 7:28 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Let's go!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can Christians tolerate each other as well as Jews can?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/1f898d2ae6259b6c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 5:00 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

Can anyone picture Christians accepting each other as Christian, and
wanting to identify themselves as Christian, in the face of such
(below) diversity of belief?

Lack of belief in afterlife (as represented by Natalie Portman):
On the concept of the afterlife, she comments "I don't believe in
that. I believe this is it, and I believe it's the best way to
live."[9] She has said that she feels more Jewish in the Holy Land and
that she would like to raise her children in the Jewish religion: "A
priority for me is definitely that I'd like to raise my kids Jewish,
but the ultimate thing is to have someone who is a good person and who
is a partner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman

Reincarnation believing Rabbi revered:
Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel (1604-1657), one of the most revered Rabbis
in Israel, states in his book entitled Nishmat Hayyim: "The belief or
the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is a firm and infallible
dogma accepted by the whole assemblage of our church with one accord,
so that there is none to be found who would dare to deny it ...
Indeed, there is a great number of sages in Israel who hold firm to
this doctrine so that they made it a dogma, a fundamental point of our
religion. We are therefore in duty bound to obey and to accept this
dogma with acclamation ... as the truth of it has been incontestably
demonstrated by the Zohar, and all books of the Kabalists." (Nishmat
Hayyim)

Ressurection belief:
In contemporary Judaism, the traditional, mainstream view of
resurrection is maintained by the orthodox, but generally not by the
non-orthodox.

Belief in a soul:
Outside the orthodox fold, ordinary believers often accept the notion
of an immortal soul, not unlike the notion held by most Christians.

Lack of belief in afterlife:
many secular and Reform Jews continue to view themselves as part of
the tradition of Judaism, without adhering to any sort of afterlife
belief.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/judaism06.html

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 5:07 pm
From: Woodbridge

Christian priests rape little children and Christian Treebeard
tolerates it very much.
Many Christians tolerate like that otherwise why they dont leave
Church?

On Dec 1, 5:00 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Can anyone picture Christians accepting each other as Christian, and
> wanting to identify themselves as Christian, in the face of such
> (below) diversity of belief?
>
> Lack of belief in afterlife (as represented by Natalie Portman):
> On the concept of the afterlife, she comments "I don't believe in
> that. I believe this is it, and I believe it's the best way to
> live."[9] She has said that she feels more Jewish in the Holy Land and
> that she would like to raise her children in the Jewish religion: "A
> priority for me is definitely that I'd like to raise my kids Jewish,
> but the ultimate thing is to have someone who is a good person and who
> is a partner.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman
>
> Reincarnation believing Rabbi revered:
> Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel (1604-1657), one of the most revered Rabbis
> in Israel, states in his book entitled Nishmat Hayyim: "The belief or
> the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is a firm and infallible
> dogma accepted by the whole assemblage of our church with one accord,
> so that there is none to be found who would dare to deny it ...
> Indeed, there is a great number of sages in Israel who hold firm to
> this doctrine so that they made it a dogma, a fundamental point of our
> religion. We are therefore in duty bound to obey and to accept this
> dogma with acclamation ... as the truth of it has been incontestably
> demonstrated by the Zohar, and all books of the Kabalists." (Nishmat
> Hayyim)
>
> Ressurection belief:
> In contemporary Judaism, the traditional, mainstream view of
> resurrection is maintained by the orthodox, but generally not by the
> non-orthodox.
>
> Belief in a soul:
> Outside the orthodox fold, ordinary believers often accept the notion
> of an immortal soul, not unlike the notion held by most Christians.
>
> Lack of belief in afterlife:
> many secular and Reform Jews continue to view themselves as part of
> the tradition of Judaism, without adhering to any sort of afterlife
> belief.
>
> http://www.near-death.com/experiences/judaism06.html

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 5:25 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:00 PM, ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com <
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Can anyone picture Christians accepting each other as Christian, and
> wanting to identify themselves as Christian, in the face of such
> (below) diversity of belief?
>
> Lack of belief in afterlife (as represented by Natalie Portman):
> On the concept of the afterlife, she comments "I don't believe in
> that. I believe this is it, and I believe it's the best way to
> live."[9] She has said that she feels more Jewish in the Holy Land and
> that she would like to raise her children in the Jewish religion: "A
> priority for me is definitely that I'd like to raise my kids Jewish,

That's sad. I don't understand why you'd raise your kids religiously if you
didn't buy it.

>
> but the ultimate thing is to have someone who is a good person and who
> is a partner.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman
>
> Reincarnation believing Rabbi revered:
> Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel (1604-1657), one of the most revered Rabbis
> in Israel, states in his book entitled Nishmat Hayyim: "The belief or
> the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is a firm and infallible
> dogma accepted by the whole assemblage of our church with one accord,
> so that there is none to be found who would dare to deny it ...
> Indeed, there is a great number of sages in Israel who hold firm to
> this doctrine so that they made it a dogma, a fundamental point of our
> religion. We are therefore in duty bound to obey and to accept this
> dogma with acclamation ... as the truth of it has been incontestably
> demonstrated by the Zohar, and all books of the Kabalists." (Nishmat
> Hayyim)
>
> Ressurection belief:
> In contemporary Judaism, the traditional, mainstream view of
> resurrection is maintained by the orthodox, but generally not by the
> non-orthodox.
>
> Belief in a soul:
> Outside the orthodox fold, ordinary believers often accept the notion
> of an immortal soul, not unlike the notion held by most Christians.
>
> Lack of belief in afterlife:
> many secular and Reform Jews continue to view themselves as part of
> the tradition of Judaism, without adhering to any sort of afterlife
> belief.
>
> http://www.near-death.com/experiences/judaism06.html
>
>
>
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In defence of non-people
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/73819e9ca83577d0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 5:03 pm
From: Max

No problems at all.

Just some final observations from me though. This thread had all the
makings of something where we all could have contributed to the
discussion, on the efficacy of all our tactical efforts against
religion etc; that could have yielded some great insights. But alas,
not to be.

I recognise that your efforts here were to highlight what you saw as
an illigitimacy in the logic of Dev's approach and thus presented a
flawed argument & my focus was to offer my opinion that Dev's approach
is less than optimal, in that theists generally avoid his 'analogy',
go off on a tangent and then focus on his 'theatrics' as Rapp calls
it. I just thought it a silly, unnecessary and a wasteful diversionary
approach, in which theists get a free 'get out of gaol card' that's
all.

But the reaction of Dev to other atheists 'dissent' is bizarre to say
the least. It reminds me of the 2 year old tantrum, the antics of a
zealot or the reaction of someone who is super sensitive.

I mean, a simple discussion on the pro's and con's, with a resultant,
'we agree to disagree' outcome would have been sufficient. But I think
that Dev takes himself too seriously & this GG a bit too importantly.
He is so ready to strike out at any dissent (usually as it comes from
the theists - which I can understand) but the problem here is that the
'discussion' we had in this thread was not based on any philosophical
disagreement, it was one of logic (for you) & tactical efficacy (me).

What did Dev in, in my opinion, was the way he avoided ackowledging
that both Rapp & I disagree with his strategy. It may seem only a
small thing, but in essence, if he did acknowldege it, he would have
found it very difficult to justify his follow up antics, because
theses theatrics are certainly not for the purpose of highlighting
theistic hypocrisy. No, it was just a dummy spit and an effort to side
track the issue (of his debating tactic), much like what he chides
theists for.

And if he uses the excuse that his antics (theatrics) are in response
to me 'sledging and barking him down' then that doesn't work either,
because you Kip, did absolutely none of that. You were the model of
debating propriety. But that didn't stop ol' Devy calling you every
name under the sun did it.

And my secondary focus with him (how Rapp, who also disagrees with his
tactic) just highlights the schoolyard group or tribe mentality he
follows. A lot like the neo con challenge of, "You're either with me
or your against me". The logic should have it, that Dev should call
Rapp every name under the sun however this doesn't occur. I assume Dev
has acknowldeged Rapps' disagreement, but no sledging or personal
attack follows for Rapp. Why.....well I think Dev needs to answer that
one. Probably because Rapp is a very smart chap and Dev has has great
respect for him. I'm afraid I am someone lower on the intellectual
totem pole that Rapp, particularly in the eyes of an hypocritical,
middle class elitist. hence my charge of hypocrisy with Dev.

So, the interesting this is, what is Dev? A spoilt little child, a
zealot or just a plain old conceited fellow, who cannot, will not
concede anything to anyone, because he thinks he is right no matter
what. Actually, it's not an issue of right and wrong; Trance covered
that issue off quite well, it's a matter of maturity I believe.

Pity, he has so much to offer. But like many people who become so
totally absorbed and immersed in an endeavour that consumes them, they
have convinced themselves of their own intellectual supremecy, and
cannot & will not tolerate being put under any scrutiny at all.

Max

On Dec 1, 9:30 pm, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28 Nov, 22:03, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dev,
>
> > This post really goes to show how immature you're acting mate. You're
> > carrying on like a fuckin' two year old, who's having a big sook. I
> > think in real life, you're a just sniviling little girls blouse who
> > wouldn't say boo if challenged on anything, as well as being a spoiled
> > little shit.
>
> > You my friend, have shown your true colours when placed under a minor
> > bit of scrutiny.
>
> > Both Kip & I have attempted to provide a reasoned response to your
> > 'tactic' with theists, but you have reacted with venom and personal
> > slight almost immediately. I've been in this forum for 2 years and we
> > have always had civil discourse, but when challenged on a tactical
> > approach, you have gone off your tits and spat the dum big time. 'Tis
> > exactly the type of behaviour one expects from some of the theist
> > loons in this forum.
>
> > It's OK though, 'cause I can plainly see that you are only doing what
> > so many 'self aggrandising' conceited pompous arses have done both
> > here and elsewhere.
>
> > It's no great surprise that you act, much like the loonie theists you
> > castigate so vehemently. You're no different pal.
>
> > And if you want to go toe to toe, please by all means. I'm an atheist
> > Dev. So, you'll just have to find something else to hammer me for.
>
> > Maybe I should die, 'cause Maxy don't agree with you.
>
> That's exactly the way I see it too Max and I appreciate you standing
> up to Devs hate filled rants.
>
> Experience shows that questioning Dev's opinions generally leads to
> vicious personal attacks. I have never engaged anyone who is so
> sensitive to criticism. I don't really mind personal attacks when
> they come from someone like Dev but it would be nice if they were
> accompanied by some kind of argument or admission that his argument is
> not logically sound as he first claimed.
>
> I tried to give him the chance early on to just admit he was trolling
> and to back away from the argument that all theists should be killed
> but he wouldn't. Instead he maintained that it was logically sound
> and stood by it. Now it has been shown up for being nothing but an
> illogical immoral rant he calls us disingenuous for attacking a point
> of view which he never held in the first place.
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 1:11 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > Kippers is a stupid little cunt, and so is Max. This is proven by the
> > > fact that they blame me for the fact that they're stupid little cunts,
> > > and expect me to lie about it.
>
> > > On Nov 28, 5:23 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>wrote:
>
> > > > > On 28 Nov, 11:15, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Trogsy and DMan and have pretty much said what I would have said.
> > > > > > It took Kipper, an atheist to apply some logic and present something of a
> > > > > > case.
>
> > > > > > We've seen repeatedly that the theists can't even define their god or
> > > > > their
> > > > > > doctrine consistently.
>
> > > > > > If the theists can't even defend themselves logically in the face of
> > > > > Dev's
> > > > > > claims what does it say about them?
>
> > > > > I agree Trance, but if Dev cant admit his argument has flaws when I
> > > > > point them out, what does that say about him?
>
> > > > Kipper. I like your posts and in my opinion you're one of the good guys.
>
> > > > So I hope you will just give my question some sincere thought.
>
> > > > Why do you feel it necessary to provide a logical framework to defend
> > > > theists?
>
> > > > Why aren't they capable of doing that for themselves?
>
> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:10 AM, tom.tro...@gmail.com
> > > > > > <tom.tro...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > No, there's nothing funny about what Dev is doing. There is logic,
> > > > > > > though, and as long as theists refuse to even discuss the blatant evil
> > > > > > > that is being perpetrated in their God's name, I don't see why he
> > > > > > > should stop picking at the scab.
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 28, 4:03 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 1:19 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 10:48 pm, watts <watts....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Dev's the yang to the ying of theist bullshit extremism
> > > > > (extremism
> > > > > > > > > > being redundant) except for the fact that Dev is being humorous
> > > > > > > > > > whereas theists are being serious.
>
> > > > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > > > dude, if dev was humorous then why is no one laughting?
>
> > > > > > > > Actually, the main problem is that a lot of people ARE laughing. And
> > > > > > > > that is horribly depressing ...
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > > > > > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech
> > > > > and
> > > > > > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of
> > > > > speech
> > > > > > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis,
> > > > > US
> > > > > > Supreme Court Justice- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > --
> > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > > > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
> > > > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
> > > > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
> > > > Supreme Court Justice- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What came first: Time or Space (or God)?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/bd7525e99bb1766f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 5:04 pm
From: leebert

On Dec 1, 6:22 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You and Leebert are hysterical (Sorry I really couldn't these posts
> seriously).

I was laughing my way through my response....

Do you feel the love ?

> We need a comedy thread.
>
> I nominate the two of you to start one :-)

If he'll be my Gracie, I'll be his George.

/leebert

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT. 13 Days of Christmas Campaign Against Child Abuse
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6a8110621f5d13ba?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 5:16 pm
From: Brock

On Nov 27, 7:57 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is an issue that I hope atheists and theists can unite on and support
> the cause together.

It would be a wonderful holiday season if this issue would have an
impact on people's minds and thoughts and behavior and would lead to
positive change.

Regards,

Brock

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 5:18 pm
From: Woodbridge

So Vatican and other churches should give Christian priests who raped
little children to police YES?

On Dec 1, 5:16 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 7:57 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is an issue that I hope atheists and theists can unite on and support
> > the cause together.
>
> It would be a wonderful holiday season if this issue would have an
> impact on people's minds and thoughts and behavior and would lead to
> positive change.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Proclamation of Thanksgiving
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/573f39bd8d8bdd67?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 5:26 pm
From: Brock

On Nov 27, 1:03 pm, Abraham Lincoln <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By the President of the United States of America.
>
> A Proclamation.
>
> The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the
> blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties,
> which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source
> from which they come, others have been added, which are of so
> extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften
> even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful
> providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled
> magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States
> to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved
> with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been
> respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in
> the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly
> contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful
> diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful
> industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the
> shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our
> settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the
> precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore.
> Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has
> been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the
> country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and
> vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase
> of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand
> worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most
> High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath
> nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that
> they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as
> with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do
> therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United
> States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in
> foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November
> next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who
> dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering
> up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances
> and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national
> perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those
> who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the
> lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and
> fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the
> wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent
> with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony,
> tranquillity and Union.
>
> In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal
> of the United States to be affixed.
>
> Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year
> of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the
> Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.
>
> By the President: Abraham Lincoln
>
> William H. Seward,
> Secretary of State

A powerful point. Well made.

Regards,

Brock

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity"
group.

To post to this group, send email to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
or visit http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Atheism-vs-Christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Atheism vs Christianity

Monday, December 1, 2008

Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links