Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 8 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another Theist bites the dust.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e4d18055d0abcf63?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 2:28 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:35 PM, checkers <mkoneill@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 2, 10:41 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:38 PM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > thomas
> >
> > > > Sometimes I wish I were that kid in that Twilight Zone episode who
> could
> > > > send people to a cornfield in another dimension.
> >
> > > chx
> > > your wish is granted...now go build the machine and your'e on your
> > > way ;)
> >
> > ...
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Nope, it didn't work. You're still here.
>
> chx
> it was so simple a task. you cannot even get it to work, i was hoping
> you'd manage and send me to a better place than this. make it big for
> my family as well. we can call it the Arkporter. a cornfield sounds
> good, it means there is food and water. i withdraw the wish i granted,
> you are found not worthy.

You are, unsurprisingly, as lousy at granting wishes as you are at writing
coherent posts.

>
> >
>

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 2:54 pm
From: Drafterman

On Dec 2, 3:29 pm, Tom Dierden <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Drafterman wrote:
> > The "Western" world is more religious than the "Eastern" world. So
> > what, exactly, are you babbling about?
>
> > On Dec 2, 8:54 am, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> LedZepp,
>
> >> What is needed is a revival of faith. For too long the western world
> >> has invested in the empty void of materialism, and even in the
> >> churches the taint of materialism stains the cup of the sacrament.
> >> From birth the children of the west are fed a steady diet of
> >> amusements, sugars, and fats, and no spiritual meat. Faith is the
> >> bread of life, and the mother's breast of the west has for too long
> >> been the dispenser of death. When you see a revival of faith in the
> >> west, then you see strong men and women once again proclaiming the
> >> glory of God, and the victory of Calvary. Then you will see
> >> Christians standing steafast against the forces of evil that corrupt
> >> the fabric of western culture.
>
> >> thomas
>
> >> On Nov 27, 11:49 am, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Wanderer then LiamToo, who would be next and why?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> To Drafter and Turner,
>
> The western world is in a Twilight Zone. The materialistic culture has
> corrupted and infected every aspect of western life, science has
> advanced beyond the boundaries of moderation and prudence, the way of
> power has been overshadowed by the monolith of materialism and its
> co-benefactor. It is the partnership of materialism and capitalism that
> have taken control of God's creation and corrupted every aspect of life.
> The Christian followers have lost their way under the heavy burden of
> modern life. And western culture has infiltrated the church and the
> pews, so that the church now is in partnership with the state. But many
> are beginning to awaken and see the folly of the church state, and how
> politics has allowed these modern twins to invade every aspect of life
> and the church. The church must be free of the state, or there is a
> cohabitation with mammon. Mammon now rules the churches in the western
> culture.
>
> thomas

But Christianity doesn't exist much outside the west, so how do you
judge that Christianity is corrupted? Perhaps this is what
Christianity truly is?

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:07 pm
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 2, 12:33 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Tom Dierden <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Drafterman wrote:
> > > The "Western" world is more religious than the "Eastern" world. So
> > > what, exactly, are you babbling about?
>
> > > On Dec 2, 8:54 am, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> LedZepp,
>
> > >> What is needed is a revival of faith. For too long the western world
> > >> has invested in the empty void of materialism, and even in the
> > >> churches the taint of materialism stains the cup of the sacrament.
> > >> From birth the children of the west are fed a steady diet of
> > >> amusements, sugars, and fats, and no spiritual meat. Faith is the
> > >> bread of life, and the mother's breast of the west has for too long
> > >> been the dispenser of death. When you see a revival of faith in the
> > >> west, then you see strong men and women once again proclaiming the
> > >> glory of God, and the victory of Calvary. Then you will see
> > >> Christians standing steafast against the forces of evil that corrupt
> > >> the fabric of western culture.
>
> > >> thomas
>
> > >> On Nov 27, 11:49 am, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> Wanderer then LiamToo, who would be next and why?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > To Drafter and Turner,
>
> > The western world is in a Twilight Zone. The materialistic culture has
> > corrupted and infected every aspect of western life, science has
> > advanced beyond the boundaries of moderation and prudence, the way of
> > power has been overshadowed by the monolith of materialism and its
> > co-benefactor. It is the partnership of materialism and capitalism that
> > have taken control of God's creation and corrupted every aspect of life.
> > The Christian followers have lost their way under the heavy burden of
> > modern life. And western culture has infiltrated the church and the
> > pews, so that the church now is in partnership with the state. But many
> > are beginning to awaken and see the folly of the church state, and how
> > politics has allowed these modern twins to invade every aspect of life
> > and the church. The church must be free of the state, or there is a
> > cohabitation with mammon. Mammon now rules the churches in the western
> > culture.
>
> > thomas
>
> Sometimes I wish I were that kid in that Twilight Zone episode who could
> send people to a cornfield in another dimension.

I wish you were too.

==============================================================================
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 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 2:30 pm
From: Max

OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look for
the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have been
discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy had
done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)

Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
to back his premise that

"I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."

After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
was all a set up.

I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
greys, so it seems.

He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable solution
and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)

I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
a flawed argument that one.

But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
certainly don't argue otherwise.

But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
circumstances.

Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us, colonialism
and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
divided us.

It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
strive for understanding.

Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean who
writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every one
else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
violence anyway.

"It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
what's right."

Max

On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Dear Lady,
>
> > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting Dev
> > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
> > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I didn't
> > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted to
> > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
>
> > I think the gay community has had some wins for community acceptance
> > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have had
> > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle' still
> > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
>
> > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of non
> > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the right
> > to vote. Go girls!
>
> > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non violent
> > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
> > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
> > violence eh!
>
> Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we know is
> working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
>
>
>
>
>
> > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
>
> > Cheers
>
> > Max
>
> > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings are
> > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in order
> > to
> > > resolve problems.
>
> > > I would think that was a good thing.
>
> > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
>
> > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the existing
> > > circumstances.
>
> > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War of
> > > Conquest a success.
>
> > > It depends on what the goals are.
>
> > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a problem,
> > > violence is rarely the right solution.
>
> > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Let's go!
>
> > > > > Martin Luther King.
>
> > > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
>
> > > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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
>
> > > --
> > > 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> 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

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 2:41 pm
From: Multiverse

What really drives history?
> Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> didn't lose.

Hey Dev,
Technically the American Revolution would have been
unsuccessful without French help. So that's a good place to start.
Obviously many countries exist who sucked at violence but got help.
But I'm splitting hairs with the question obviously.

I would not hazard a guess at your proportional question but attempts
at non violent success may have been historically more common than
known but had been quashed. History has been written by the victors
after all.

-The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
blood of patriots and tyrants,
Thomas
Jefferson

I guess nowadays we can't go spilling the blood of patriots and
tyrants.......Unless they are in another country of course. Non
violent success seems to have something to do with how much violence
is likely to be visited on the non violent.

On Dec 1, 8:52 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> exactly how one explains the other).
>
> But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> didn't lose.
>
> On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > Let's go!
>
> > Martin Luther King.
>
> > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
>
> > Mahatma Gandhi.
>
> > --
> > 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 2:55 pm
From: Dev

Well, I think Neumann is correct in that Gandhi wouldn't have
considered anything a success. That's another problem with idolizing
the idealists--most 20th century icons subscribed to impossible
utopian visions that couldn't be achieved, which contributes to their
mythological status but raises serious questions--one that comes to
mind, namely, is that these icons of nonviolence are considered
successful largely based on marginalized violence or threats of force
that was associated with their causes.

On Dec 2, 7:32 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 5:47 am, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 1:15 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > He succeeded?
>
> > Yeah. Then again, so did Pyrrhus.
>
> Interesting point. Of course referring to "Pyrrhic Victory" where the
> cost to achieve success is as bad or worse than the cost of defeat.
>
> If we could ask him, what do you think Ghandi would say about whether
> or not his sacrifice was worth the cost of success?

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:08 pm
From: Multiverse

>Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
>Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
>to back his premise that

Max,
Most interesting threads that are worth responding to are a set up of
sorts. You should know that. What would you think if Dev did not do
his homework and devise a plan to flesh out some interesting stuff?
Certainly you would go on about his unpreparedness. Properly done,
the one who starts the thread should bear the burden of responding and
working the thread. That means they should do their homework.

But seriously Max,..you know that. Try to get over your tiff with
Dev. We have all had em. He calls you a name and you write another
book on his misgivings. You will contribute better here if you drop
it. Of course it's none of my business really.

On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look for
> the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have been
> discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy had
> done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
>
> Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> to back his premise that
>
> "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
>
> After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> was all a set up.
>
> I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> greys, so it seems.
>
> He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable solution
> and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
>
> I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> a flawed argument that one.
>
> But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> certainly don't argue otherwise.
>
> But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> circumstances.
>
> Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us, colonialism
> and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> divided us.
>
> It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> strive for understanding.
>
> Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean who
> writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every one
> else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> violence anyway.
>
> "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
> what's right."
>
> Max
>
> On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > Dear Lady,
>
> > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting Dev
> > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
> > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I didn't
> > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted to
> > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
>
> > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community acceptance
> > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have had
> > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle' still
> > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
>
> > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of non
> > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the right
> > > to vote. Go girls!
>
> > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non violent
> > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
> > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
> > > violence eh!
>
> > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we know is
> > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
>
> > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
>
> > > Cheers
>
> > > Max
>
> > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings are
> > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in order
> > > to
> > > > resolve problems.
>
> > > > I would think that was a good thing.
>
> > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
>
> > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the existing
> > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War of
> > > > Conquest a success.
>
> > > > It depends on what the goals are.
>
> > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a problem,
> > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
>
> > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Let's go!
>
> > > > > > Martin Luther King.
>
> > > > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
>
> > > > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 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
>
> > > > --
> > > > 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:26 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Max <amf6@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>
> OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look for
> the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have been
> discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy had
> done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
>
> Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> to back his premise that
>
> "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
>
> After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> was all a set up.

Not at all. I knew where Dev was going with it.

I'm glad he brought the topic up so we can discuss it.

Dev already knows my opinions on this topic so my comments were no surprise
to him either.

We've had this discussion privately as well so we both knew where this was
going to go.

>
>
> I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> greys, so it seems.

Actually he doesn't. Not in my opinion anyway. He just makes his points
strongly and I guess it can look like that sometimes but I don't really see
that.

>
>
> He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable solution
> and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
>

It's paragraphs like the above that get him pissed off at you (if you want
to know ;-)

>
> I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> a flawed argument that one.

Well I wouldn't call it "flawed". It's an opinion.

I happen to have a different assessment of that.

>
> But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> certainly don't argue otherwise.
>

Only rarely in extreme cases where there are no other options whatsoever.

>
> But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> circumstances.

If it's necessary, yes.

It's a new approach and a new strategy and needs to have the bugs worked out
but in reality I'm not even talking about protest movements and brotherhood
when I discuss strategy.

I'm talking about atheists taking what's going on seriously from the
wealthiest to the poorest.

Getting active and getting involved in the government, military, media,
social aspects of society.

Be everywhere and get our policies implemented and our opinions heard.

Influence is what we need.

Why allow ourselves to be marginalized in the first place.

The protest movement approach is one taken by marginalized people.

The problem is that's how we see ourselves and so that's how we behave.

We're reacting to things instead of taking charge of things.

>
> Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us, colonialism
> and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> divided us.

Well we can only take responsibility for ourselves we can't control how
theists react to these things and unfortunately they don't react in the most
intelligent manner no matter how intelligent they may be individually.

>
>
> It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> strive for understanding.

Well that all sounds lovely but this is where you and some of the others
here lose people like Dev and me.

I can't speak for Rapp but if he reads this I'm sure he'll jump in and
comment.

The reason is that I don't believe theists want understanding. They want
conversion. Only the most liberal, and not even all of them, might be
willing to accept a limited truce on these questions.

Understanding isn't going to happen. On this I agree with Dev.

Agreements can be made on certain issues.

For example, atheists and some theists might agree that we both want
secularism or that we both want a certain level of human rights, etc.

Other than that anyone who thinks that theists have any interest whatsoever
in building understanding, empathy, etc types of relationships with atheists
is delusional themselves in my opinion.

The best we can have is agreements on specific issues.

And this is precisely why the atheist solution has to be to get into
positions of influence and deal with issues directly instead of
marginalizing ourselves and then complaining when theists who are getting
themselves in positions of influence exercise their power.

> Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean who
> writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every one
> else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> violence anyway.
>
> "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
> what's right."
>
> Max
>
> On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Lady,
> >
> > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting Dev
> > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
> > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I didn't
> > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted to
> > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
> >
> > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community acceptance
> > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have had
> > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle' still
> > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
> >
> > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of non
> > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the right
> > > to vote. Go girls!
> >
> > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non violent
> > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
> > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
> > > violence eh!
> >
> > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we know
> is
> > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
> >
> > > Cheers
> >
> > > Max
> >
> > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually,
> book,
> > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples"
> that
> > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with
> human
> > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> anyone--explain
> > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
> >
> > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings
> are
> > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in
> order
> > > to
> > > > resolve problems.
> >
> > > > I would think that was a good thing.
> >
> > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is
> of
> > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> proportion
> > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence
> more
> > > > > didn't lose.
> >
> > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
> >
> > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the
> existing
> > > > circumstances.
> >
> > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War
> of
> > > > Conquest a success.
> >
> > > > It depends on what the goals are.
> >
> > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a
> problem,
> > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
> >
> > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Let's go!
> >
> > > > > > Martin Luther King.
> >
> > > > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
> >
> > > > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
> >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 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
> >
> > > > --
> > > > 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- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>

--
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

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:27 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Multiverse <cutaway@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
> What really drives history?
> > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > didn't lose.
>
> Hey Dev,
> Technically the American Revolution would have been
> unsuccessful without French help. So that's a good place to start.
> Obviously many countries exist who sucked at violence but got help.
> But I'm splitting hairs with the question obviously.
>
> I would not hazard a guess at your proportional question but attempts
> at non violent success may have been historically more common than
> known but had been quashed. History has been written by the victors
> after all.
>
>
> -The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
> blood of patriots and tyrants,
> Thomas
> Jefferson
>
> I guess nowadays we can't go spilling the blood of patriots and
> tyrants.......Unless they are in another country of course. Non
> violent success seems to have something to do with how much violence
> is likely to be visited on the non violent.

This point is quite important.

>
>
> On Dec 1, 8:52 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > exactly how one explains the other).
> >
> > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > didn't lose.
> >
> > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > > > Let's go!
> >
> > > Martin Luther King.
> >
> > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
> >
> > > Mahatma Gandhi.
> >
> > > --
> > > 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- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:31 pm
From: Max

MV, I understand your sentiments entirely and in the ordinary course
of business I probably would agree, but scroll up on this thread and
give me your opinion on Dev's immediate response to what I saw as my
relevant and non confrontational initial post.

And if I may, fleshing out interesting stuff is to be applauded, but
the thread's statement, uttered nothing about Ghandi initially did it?
So why no other discussion other than that. Because Dev wanted to
discuss the Gahndi issue alone to support his posit and so long as no
retards interject (his determination as to what constitutes a retard
response of course) and ultimately because it is up to him (and 'his'
chosen few) to challenge the status quo who are, let's face 'stupid'.

MV, if Dev puts a thread up like this and I respond with three posts
of genuine examples and the rationale behind it, then isn't that also
the idea.This isn't a tiff issue with me. It's an accountability
thing. Don't fall into the trap of excusing poor debating behaviours,
just because the recalcitrant is 'on out team'.

Read the thread from start to finish, then perhaps you'll appreciate
what I'm on about.

But, as always, you are very entitled to your opinion :)

Max

On Dec 3, 8:08 am, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> >Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> >to back his premise that
>
> Max,
> Most interesting threads that are worth responding to are a set up of
> sorts. You should know that. What would you think if Dev did not do
> his homework and devise a plan to flesh out some interesting stuff?
> Certainly you would go on about his unpreparedness. Properly done,
> the one who starts the thread should bear the burden of responding and
> working the thread. That means they should do their homework.
>
> But seriously Max,..you know that. Try to get over your tiff with
> Dev. We have all had em. He calls you a name and you write another
> book on his misgivings. You will contribute better here if you drop
> it. Of course it's none of my business really.
>
> On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look for
> > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have been
> > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy had
> > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
>
> > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > to back his premise that
>
> > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
>
> > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> > was all a set up.
>
> > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > greys, so it seems.
>
> > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable solution
> > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
>
> > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> > a flawed argument that one.
>
> > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> > certainly don't argue otherwise.
>
> > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > circumstances.
>
> > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us, colonialism
> > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> > divided us.
>
> > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> > strive for understanding.
>
> > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean who
> > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every one
> > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> > violence anyway.
>
> > "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> > anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
> > what's right."
>
> > Max
>
> > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Lady,
>
> > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting Dev
> > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
> > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I didn't
> > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted to
> > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
>
> > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community acceptance
> > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have had
> > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle' still
> > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
>
> > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of non
> > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the right
> > > > to vote. Go girls!
>
> > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non violent
> > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
> > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
> > > > violence eh!
>
> > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we know is
> > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
>
> > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
>
> > > > Cheers
>
> > > > Max
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
>
> > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings are
> > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in order
> > > > to
> > > > > resolve problems.
>
> > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
>
> > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > > > > didn't lose.
>
> > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
>
> > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the existing
> > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War of
> > > > > Conquest a success.
>
> > > > > It depends on what the goals are.
>
> > > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a problem,
> > > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Let's go!
>
> > > > > > > Martin Luther King.
>
> > > > > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
>
> > > > > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
>
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 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
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > --
> > > 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:31 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Multiverse <cutaway@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
> >Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> >Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> >to back his premise that
>
> Max,
> Most interesting threads that are worth responding to are a set up of
> sorts. You should know that. What would you think if Dev did not do
> his homework and devise a plan to flesh out some interesting stuff?
> Certainly you would go on about his unpreparedness. Properly done,
> the one who starts the thread should bear the burden of responding and
> working the thread. That means they should do their homework.
>
> But seriously Max,..you know that. Try to get over your tiff with
> Dev. We have all had em. He calls you a name and you write another
> book on his misgivings. You will contribute better here if you drop
> it. Of course it's none of my business really.
>

Wise words of Wisdom from MV.

Advice I agree with, Max.

>
>
>
>
> On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > OK TG, I've looked at Dev's premise a bit more, ostensibly to look for
> > the key motivation behind it and the Ghandi example that you have been
> > discussing was really a manufactured argument from the start. Devy had
> > done some reading, threw the bait out with a fairly broad statement
> > knowing that Ghandi would appear from someone fairly early on in the
> > piece. (He acknowledged it later anyway)
> >
> > Two bites almost immediately. Well then, on cue you could hear ol'
> > Devy say. Aha! Well................and away he went, source material
> > to back his premise that
> >
> > "I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material."
> >
> > After a couple of exchanges, I'm sure you started feeling like this
> > was all a set up.
> >
> > I think Dev sees most things in Black & White only. I mean reference
> > to the statement 'Non violence has never worked" Mmmmhh, very few
> > greys, so it seems.
> >
> > He sees the 'pacifist, non compliant or non violent' approach to
> > dealing with problems of state, injustice etc as not a viable solution
> > and that regarding non violence as a valuable strategy is without
> > historical efficacy and is only supported by wooses. (Or more likely
> > churchy pacifists, or liberals etc)
> >
> > I think he misses the point that non violent strategies are really
> > only a recent phenomena, so the weight of historic evidence that
> > violent measures have worked clearly has held sway for millenia. It's
> > a flawed argument that one.
> >
> > But yes, war, insurrection, violent opposition etc has it's place. I
> > certainly don't argue otherwise.
> >
> > But if we as a species are to evolve towards some form of
> > enlightenment, surely there is a place in this world for non violent
> > protest and strive towards notions of understanding, empathy and a
> > brotherhood of man & (woman). I mean, the examples provided here
> > demonstrate that non violent protest does work, in certain
> > circumstances.
> >
> > Religion has divided us, ideological dogma has divided us, colonialism
> > and imperialism has divided us, war has divided us and ignorance has
> > divided us.
> >
> > It's time to move away from the paradigm of hostility to seize and
> > control what we want. Yes, defend ourselves against tyranny with
> > violence, individual or state sanctioned, but we should collectively
> > strive for understanding.
> >
> > Too many people, like Dev only see things in absolute terms and
> > particularly with the view that they are right, absolutley. I mean who
> > writes this kind of thing other than a ideologue who figures every one
> > else is 'stupid' but fails to see that the status quo actually prefer
> > violence anyway.
> >
> > "It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically correct
> > anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure out
> > what's right."
> >
> > Max
> >
> > On Dec 2, 9:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > Dear Lady,
> >
> > > > I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> > > > irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting
> Dev
> > > > is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
> > > > with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I
> didn't
> > > > realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted to
> > > > discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
> >
> > > > I think the gay community has had some wins for community acceptance
> > > > particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> > > > anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have had
> > > > the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle' still
> > > > ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
> >
> > > > Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of non
> > > > violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the right
> > > > to vote. Go girls!
> >
> > > > There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non violent
> > > > protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> > > > injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
> > > > the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> > > > though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> > > > African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
> > > > violence eh!
> >
> > > Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we
> know is
> > > working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
> >
> > > > There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
> >
> > > > Cheers
> >
> > > > Max
> >
> > > > On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually,
> book,
> > > > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples"
> that
> > > > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the
> link,
> > > > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why
> are
> > > > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples?
> Is
> > > > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well,
> no--
> > > > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with
> human
> > > > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case,
> anyone--explain
> > > > > > exactly how one explains the other).
> >
> > > > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human
> beings are
> > > > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in
> order
> > > > to
> > > > > resolve problems.
> >
> > > > > I would think that was a good thing.
> >
> > > > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion
> is of
> > > > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the
> proportion
> > > > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives
> history?
> > > > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence
> more
> > > > > > didn't lose.
> >
> > > > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
> >
> > > > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the
> existing
> > > > > circumstances.
> >
> > > > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a
> War of
> > > > > Conquest a success.
> >
> > > > > It depends on what the goals are.
> >
> > > > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a
> problem,
> > > > > violence is rarely the right solution.
> >
> > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > Let's go!
> >
> > > > > > > Martin Luther King.
> >
> > > > > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
> >
> > > > > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
> >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 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
> >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > --
> > > 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- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 2:39 pm
From: Medusa

ObservantEye;

> It sounds like we had a similar upbringing. However, I recognized
> that it was the _people_ that make the cage. The beliefs actually
> seemed to have a good purpose and intent until people get hold of it.
> I have to say that I think there's much to say _for_ religious
> ideals. Accountability, striving to become better, helping your
> neighbor, golden rule, etc. The ideals are great. It's always been
> the people I've had a problem with. I don't think they understand/
> interpret the intent of most of the stuff in the (insert religious
> text title here).

I believe it was George Bernard Shaw who said: "Christianity is a
great idea, but, so far, it hasn't been tried yet." Some good ideas,
but rarely carried out.

> Question: Does atheist mean you're against religion of any kind?
> Consider pantheism, Christianity, Islam, lucky rabbit feet, humanism,
> etc. Does everyone here hate all religions or do we pick and choose?

I am not 'against" any religion; I just don't believe in the dogma and
the myths of any religion.

However, I do _not_ like the way people try to impose their religious
beliefs on others.

That is the part of religons I detest. Ok, you don't like "A," so
just don't do "A." But don't tell other people they can't do "A!"

Medusa

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 2:50 pm
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 2, 1:56 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I also value both. The ethics is really what I'm talking about, I
> guess. You say that the laws of the modern secular democracies
> generally reflect your idea of ethical rights and wrongs. What if
> they didn't?

Then vote the buggers out.

> BTW, I agree that the Dark Ages was a horrible nightmare
> that theists and atheists both want to avoid ever again.

I disagree that theists want to avoid the Dark Ages, or that they
think it was a horrible nightmare. Some do, some don't. The more
fundamentalist section of Christianity would welcome Christian rule,
and they come out and say so. They view modern America (et al) as
sinful and Godless. And fundamentalists have a way of steamrollering
moderates. It's a slippery slope from the Religious Right to another
Inquisition. Good thing we can vote the buggers out!

> But again,
> the actual events I think you're referring to had to do with a
> governmentalized religion. That's just a nightmare in itself.

That "governmentalized religion" was Christianity. The West is
secularized largely because of the Christian nightmare it lived
through.

> I've seen many good reconciliations of evolution and Genesis.

I haven't. I don't see any way to believe God made the universe (and
when the Bible was written they thought the universe was WAYYYYY
smaller than it turned out to be) in a week, and at the same time
think that species evolve over millions and billions of years.
Evolution contradicts Genesis.

> I'm
> betting you've seen the same ones. I really don't know for a fact how
> everything went back then. I wasn't there. None of us have
> conclusive proof.

There is conclusive proof. Fossils. Molecular DNA. Observed evolution.
I thought you said you have a curious mind. How come you're making
conclusions before you've examined all the evidence?

And why don't you hold religion up to the same standards of evidence
that you do for evolution? There is, after all, NO evidence that God
exists. Where's your "curious mind" in this regard?

I think you might be kidding yourself about yourself.

> We have theories and we have scant evidence and we
> have words written to a people very little like us.

They were a lot like us. In fact, they were exactly like us. They were
homo sapiens, so are we. We are the same species. I thought you said
you have a curious mind.

> We've been able
> to prove the world isn't on a tortoise's back like the Indians believe
> or believed by pointing telescopes in all directions. No turtle. So
> no one, in my opinion has an arguable position on this since we have
> no witnesses to ask and no instruments to measure with and no evidence
> lying right in front of us. Some say we evolved from Martian pee in
> the ocean. Same problem there.

That didn't make much sense, no offence.

> On Dec 2, 3:40 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 12:50 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm mentally healthy and am an inquisitive child (at heart). As an
> > > atheist, how do you decide what is right and what is wrong? Is there
> > > a site or something I can see? I'm honestly curious here.
>
> > What do you mean, right and wrong as in "factually correct," or right
> > and wrong as in ethics? Because I value both. I'm not trying to avoid
> > your question. I'd say (to keep it managably short) the laws of the
> > modern secular democracies generally reflect my idea of ethical rights
> > and wrongs. I also think the more people get their facts straight the
> > better society will be - if most members of a culture believe the
> > other members of the culture are going to be tortured for eternity by
> > God then they might be inclined to treat the non-believers like crap
> > (history shows this is exactly what happens). So start by getting the
> > facts straight - does God even exist? Being right about this IS
> > important.
>
> > If you're an inquisitive child at heart (and I'm assuming you're a
> > Christian - forgive me if I'm wrong) then how do you reconcile, say,
> > evolution with Genesis?
>
> > > On Dec 2, 12:33 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 9:37 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 1, 5:10 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@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.
>
> > > > > > I agree with you, but I'm finding it weird that the ones who seem the
> > > > > > loudest about being depraved sinners (e.g. Brock, e.g. thea. e.g.
> > > > > > preachers) come across as being the most in love with themselves.
>
> > > > > That's a good point. But then, we know from his behavior that Brock doesn't
> > > > > actually believe what he says, and only says it in order to justify his
> > > > > unjustifiable points.
>
> > > > Exactly. Brock just wants to be seen as Jesus Junior, so he talks the
> > > > talk. That's my point. The only people that actually fall for the
> > > > "wretched sinner" bullshit are frightened children and the mentally
> > > > ill, it seems to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: guidelines.org: You can only live so long
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/716971416ddc1540?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 2:46 pm
From: Brock

from:

http://www.guidelines.org/PlayMP3.asp?f=20081202&format=MP3&LANG=ENG

transcript:

http://www.guidelines.org/radio/eng/20081202.asp

note:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE1DE1339F934A35752C0A960958260&scp=1&sq=richard
versalle&st=cse

Consider:

"In January of 1996, Richard Versalle was portraying the minor role of
a law clerk named Vitek in a performance at the prestigious
Metropolitan Opera in New York City. He was age 63 and had suffered
absolutely no adverse health problems. In the opera there is a
beautiful and mysterious woman who wants to live forever. Her father,
a chemist-magician, concocts a powerful elixir which allows her to
live more than 300 years. But Versalle, portraying the law clerk,
sings a line which goes, "You can only live so long." Little did
anyone who attended the opera that night realize that those words—"You
can only live so long"--would be the last sentence ever to come from
the lips of this man whose singing had touched the hearts of thousand
and thousands in his career.

No sooner had Versalle sung the line when his heart failed, and he
fell, landing motionless on his back with his arms outstretched."

and:

"Long ago the writer of Hebrews wrote, "...man is destined to die
once, and after that to face judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). Of one thing
you can be sure, when it comes to the length of our lives, we may
fantasize about living for 300 years, but the fact remains there is an
established number of years for every person to live and after that we
face death. In life there are many inequities. Some have the money to
have the finest seats in the opera. Some have only enough to sit in
the balcony far away from the action. And some can't even afford the
least expensive seat in the house; however, when making an entrance
and an exit to the stage of life, every one is perfectly equal.

Facing death, however, is neither scary nor foreboding when you have
the concrete assurance that death opens the door to eternal life.
That's the difference that Jesus Christ made in our world."

Regards,

Brock

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 2:54 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

Answer, I leave this to you and your "blah blah blah".

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Brock <brockorgan@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> from:
>
> http://www.guidelines.org/PlayMP3.asp?f=20081202&format=MP3&LANG=ENG
>
> transcript:
>
> http://www.guidelines.org/radio/eng/20081202.asp
>
> note:
>
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE1DE1339F934A35752C0A960958260&scp=1&sq=richard
> versalle&st=cse<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE1DE1339F934A35752C0A960958260&scp=1&sq=richardversalle&st=cse>
>
> Consider:
>
> "In January of 1996, Richard Versalle was portraying the minor role of
> a law clerk named Vitek in a performance at the prestigious
> Metropolitan Opera in New York City. He was age 63 and had suffered
> absolutely no adverse health problems. In the opera there is a
> beautiful and mysterious woman who wants to live forever. Her father,
> a chemist-magician, concocts a powerful elixir which allows her to
> live more than 300 years. But Versalle, portraying the law clerk,
> sings a line which goes, "You can only live so long." Little did
> anyone who attended the opera that night realize that those words—"You
> can only live so long"--would be the last sentence ever to come from
> the lips of this man whose singing had touched the hearts of thousand
> and thousands in his career.
>
> No sooner had Versalle sung the line when his heart failed, and he
> fell, landing motionless on his back with his arms outstretched."
>
> and:
>
> "Long ago the writer of Hebrews wrote, "...man is destined to die
> once, and after that to face judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). Of one thing
> you can be sure, when it comes to the length of our lives, we may
> fantasize about living for 300 years, but the fact remains there is an
> established number of years for every person to live and after that we
> face death. In life there are many inequities. Some have the money to
> have the finest seats in the opera. Some have only enough to sit in
> the balcony far away from the action. And some can't even afford the
> least expensive seat in the house; however, when making an entrance
> and an exit to the stage of life, every one is perfectly equal.
>
> Facing death, however, is neither scary nor foreboding when you have
> the concrete assurance that death opens the door to eternal life.
> That's the difference that Jesus Christ made in our world."
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> >
>

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 2:58 pm
From: Woodbridge

"Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
morally void. Though there may be some atheists who

fit these categories (as would many in the general population),
atheists are not categorically stupid, devil-worshipping,

degenerates with no morals. Many of them are fine citizens, honest,
caring, loving, and patient. For a Christian, or anyone

for that matter, to make a blanket statement about atheists in a
derogatory manner is wrong. It is the same thing atheists

sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being irrational,
psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on either

side of the argument of truth.
Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
through their position over a long period of time and

arrive at conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in
religious homes, have seen what religion has to offer, and

have rejected it. Of course, I think that atheists have drawn
incorrect conclusions about God, but it doesn't mean they are

dumb. Some atheists have presented very cogent arguments against the
existence of God, which need to be addressed.
So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid.

Labeling and name-calling have no place in the discussion.
Ignoring Atheists' Questions
If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive

will not make it go away. If an atheist asks a question and you
ignore it repeatedly, it would be fair for him to conclude

you were incapable of answering the objection. Of course, this does
not mean you have to always answer everything because

dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important that you face issues.
If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's okay.

It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an answer. Go
study and get an answer and get back to him.
Stating that Atheism is a religion
Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
religion almost always is defined to include belief in

a deity of some sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't
necessarily a "belief that there is no God," (though it can

be)but is "not believing either way."
To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
effective communication. It would be like someone

saying to a Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who
likes to torture people." The Christian would simply

roll his eyes and think that the person doesn't know what he's talking
about. So, how much effective conversation could

there be in either instance? Not much.
Stating unsupportable facts
No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything

said. Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is
good to have the documentation at the tip of your tongue

-- at least occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your
credibility. Of course, you don't have to document

everything, but if you have some illustrious fact to use, try and have
it documented.
Never admitting when you are wrong
Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no

place in the Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being
prideful. If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong

is something, be kind and courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go
on. Everyone makes mistakes, even atheists. There is

nothing wrong with admitting an error. It no more proves you are
wrong about Christianity than being wrong about the color

of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you never admit when you
are wrong, you will not be able to convince anyone in a

discussion of your position. You will simply lose the respect of the
one with whom you are debating."

http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm

On Dec 2, 2:46 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> from:
>
> http://www.guidelines.org/PlayMP3.asp?f=20081202&format=MP3&LANG=ENG
>
> transcript:
>
> http://www.guidelines.org/radio/eng/20081202.asp
>
> note:
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE1DE1339F934A35752...
> versalle&st=cse
>
> Consider:
>
> "In January of 1996, Richard Versalle was portraying the minor role of
> a law clerk named Vitek in a performance at the prestigious
> Metropolitan Opera in New York City. He was age 63 and had suffered
> absolutely no adverse health problems. In the opera there is a
> beautiful and mysterious woman who wants to live forever. Her father,
> a chemist-magician, concocts a powerful elixir which allows her to
> live more than 300 years. But Versalle, portraying the law clerk,
> sings a line which goes, "You can only live so long." Little did
> anyone who attended the opera that night realize that those words—"You
> can only live so long"--would be the last sentence ever to come from
> the lips of this man whose singing had touched the hearts of thousand
> and thousands in his career.
>
> No sooner had Versalle sung the line when his heart failed, and he
> fell, landing motionless on his back with his arms outstretched."
>
> and:
>
> "Long ago the writer of Hebrews wrote, "...man is destined to die
> once, and after that to face judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). Of one thing
> you can be sure, when it comes to the length of our lives, we may
> fantasize about living for 300 years, but the fact remains there is an
> established number of years for every person to live and after that we
> face death. In life there are many inequities. Some have the money to
> have the finest seats in the opera. Some have only enough to sit in
> the balcony far away from the action. And some can't even afford the
> least expensive seat in the house; however, when making an entrance
> and an exit to the stage of life, every one is perfectly equal.
>
> Facing death, however, is neither scary nor foreboding when you have
> the concrete assurance that death opens the door to eternal life.
> That's the difference that Jesus Christ made in our world."
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:08 pm
From: arcangel

Dear Ruthie:

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: The begining of the Armagedon War.

With Barack Obama The Armagedon War begins soon, is a prophecy;
thousands of millions will be dead, exterminated, but, don 't worry,
be happy, good news, millions will stay alive forever, please; you
only have to obey The Laws of God in the New Testament of The Holly
Bible, and pray, visit the real christians, and read it !:
- Psalm: 37: 9,10,29; Mathew 5:5
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=salm%2037:%209,10,29;%20mathew%205:5&version=31

Barack Hussein Obama ( is that a christian name or what ? ) is a false
christian. He is a muslim from Islam, and he is a socialist trained by
Fidel Castro and partners from Internacional Socialism. He is a Jew
Zionist luxury member too.

>>>>>> USE THE GOOGLE TRANSLATOR, IS FREE, <<<<<<
You can translate some words or a total web page:
http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=es#
Use a separate tab or another window to translate any thing in many
languages.

The Zionists are a sect or cult from Israel.

The sect of the Zionists will be destroyed according to the
prophecies:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaias%201;&version=31;

Judaism has failed in bringing peace and security to the rest of the
world. Christianity was established as the only hope for mankind.
Laws, mandates and councils in the New Testament of the Holy Bible can
change the behavior of millions to live better, in peace and
harmony ...

http://es.geocities.com/eleazarcarvajal/sionismo.html

If not open, click here:

http://religion-politica.googlegroups.com/web/sionismo.htm

GREAT DESTRUCTION approaches, bad religions and evil sects or cults
are involved.
The Vatican, in Rome, will be destroyed first .... and after...
¡ BUUUM !, The Armagedon War begins ! ! ! !

Read about the dirty war that the narco-terrorist regime of the jew
Fidel Castro directed against the population of America and the rest
of the world that is NOT a socialist (red communist atheist):

Use the google translator; is an emergency:
http://mipagina.univision.com/alien777

Visit some times this link with secret info that you never saw:

http://group.google.com/group/religion-politica/topics

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A N S W E R - M E ! ! ! - THE ACTUAL BAD ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL
SITUATION AROUND THE WORLD is the begining of the END of The WORLD ? ? ? ? ?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/063e4e98eabc4942?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:13 pm
From: arcangel

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: The begining of the Armagedon War.

The Zionists are a sect or cult from Israel.

The sect of the Zionists will be destroyed according to the
prophecies:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaias%201;&version=31;

http://es.geocities.com/eleazarcarvajal/sionismo.html

If not open, click here:

http://religion-politica.googlegroups.com/web/sionismo.htm

GREAT DESTRUCTION approaches, bad religions and evil sects or cults
are involved.
The Vatican, in Rome, will be destroyed first .... and after...
¡ BUUUM !, The Armagedon War begins ! ! ! !

Read about the dirty war that the narco-terrorist regime of the jew
Fidel Castro directed against the population of America and the rest
of the world that is NOT a socialist (red communist atheist):

Use the google translator; is an emergency:
http://mipagina.univision.com/alien777

Visit some times this link with secret info that you never saw:

http://group.google.com/group/religion-politica/topics

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:34 pm
From: Medusa

arcangel wrote:

> BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: The begining of the Armagedon War.

In your dreams.

Click here: http://www.fuckoff.com.

Medusa

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:35 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

It's people like you who are "evil" and will bring death and destruction to
our world if you're allowed to.
Please fuck off.

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:13 PM, arcangel <alien777@univision.com> wrote:

>
> BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: The begining of the Armagedon War.
>
> With Barack Obama The Armagedon War begins soon, is a prophecy;
> thousands of millions will be dead, exterminated, but, don 't worry,
> be happy, good news, millions will stay alive forever, please; you
> only have to obey The Laws of God in the New Testament of The Holly
> Bible, and pray, visit the real christians, and read it !:
> - Psalm: 37: 9,10,29; Mathew 5:5
>
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=salm%2037:%209,10,29;%20mathew%205:5&version=31
>
> Barack Hussein Obama ( is that a christian name or what ? ) is a false
> christian. He is a muslim from Islam, and he is a socialist trained by
> Fidel Castro and partners from Internacional Socialism. He is a Jew
> Zionist luxury member too.
>
> >>>>>> USE THE GOOGLE TRANSLATOR, IS FREE, <<<<<<
> You can translate some words or a total web page:
> http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=es#
> Use a separate tab or another window to translate any thing in many
> languages.
>
> The Zionists are a sect or cult from Israel.
>
> The sect of the Zionists will be destroyed according to the
> prophecies:
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaias%201;&version=31;
>
> Judaism has failed in bringing peace and security to the rest of the
> world. Christianity was established as the only hope for mankind.
> Laws, mandates and councils in the New Testament of the Holy Bible can
> change the behavior of millions to live better, in peace and
> harmony ...
>
> http://es.geocities.com/eleazarcarvajal/sionismo.html
>
> If not open, click here:
>
> http://religion-politica.googlegroups.com/web/sionismo.htm
>
> GREAT DESTRUCTION approaches, bad religions and evil sects or cults
> are involved.
> The Vatican, in Rome, will be destroyed first .... and after...
> ¡ BUUUM !, The Armagedon War begins ! ! ! !
>
> Read about the dirty war that the narco-terrorist regime of the jew
> Fidel Castro directed against the population of America and the rest
> of the world that is NOT a socialist (red communist atheist):
>
> Use the google translator; is an emergency:
> http://mipagina.univision.com/alien777
>
> Visit some times this link with secret info that you never saw:
>
> http://group.google.com/group/religion-politica/topics
> >
>

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:35 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Medusa <Medusa4303@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> arcangel wrote:
>
> > BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: The begining of the Armagedon War.
>
> In your dreams.
>
> Click here: http://www.fuckoff.com.

Great minds think alike ;-) Lol.

>
>
> Medusa
>
>
> >
>

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:41 pm
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 2, 3:13 pm, arcangel <alien...@univision.com> wrote:
> BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: The begining of the Armagedon War.
>
> With Barack Obama The Armagedon War begins soon, is a prophecy;
> thousands of millions will be dead, exterminated, but, don 't worry,
> be happy, good news, millions will stay alive forever, please; you
> only have to obey The Laws of God in the New Testament of The Holly
> Bible, and pray, visit the real christians, and read it !:

YES! ARMAGEDDON IS COMING!! RUN!!!!!

But before you do, it is best that you send your earthly belongings
and financial assets to the AvC Armaggedon Fund (Atheist Division) for
Post-Armaggedon safekeeping.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How do Christians avoid worshipping the wrong god?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/6d788c3a77b4c371?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:20 pm
From: Multiverse

Brock,
You state this often and it seems to present a paradox of ideas.
Perhaps you could comment why:

you say you "believe that the bible is objectively true".

ok. so if then you say:

"The objective truth of the bible is independent of my beliefs".

so apparently your beliefs are in contrast to the objective truth of
the bible. See how this does not seem to follow from your belief that
the bible is objectively true?

In short you are saying that the bible is the truth and that your own
beliefs are different.

Are you ready to revamp your beliefs based on this kunundrum?

On Dec 2, 10:57 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:43 AM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> And thus is the futility of humanistic "verification" exposed. Of
> >> course, I like how the Confession puts it:
>
> > LL: Perhaps you can explain then your need to verify or claim without
> > verification that there is only one god and that he has the attributes
> > you have given him.
>
> I don't claim that. Rather, I claim:
>
> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:40 pm
From: "Brock Organ"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Multiverse <cutaway@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Brock,
> You state this often and it seems to present a paradox of ideas.
> Perhaps you could comment why:
>
> you say you "believe that the bible is objectively true".
>
> ok. so if then you say:
>
> "The objective truth of the bible is independent of my beliefs".
>
> so apparently your beliefs are in contrast to the objective truth of
> the bible. See how this does not seem to follow from your belief that
> the bible is objectively true?
>
> In short you are saying that the bible is the truth and that your own
> beliefs are different.
>
> Are you ready to revamp your beliefs based on this kunundrum?

I simply separate a commonly presumed humanistic justification for 1)
by noting 2). In particular, this rejects the erroneous humanistic
claim that 1) is true "cuz I say so".

Regards,

Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do theists do the scariest things?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/222031400f6d3dc5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 3:25 pm
From: Medusa

dead kennedy;

> shit!
>
> i have been thinking of a darwin fish for some time but i drive the
> a406 in london every morning and evening. As this is the most
> congested and mental road in the capital i purposely limit any signage
> that will give others any reason to cut me up or be arseholes, i dont
> even have a welsh flag or bumper sticker.

I used to live in a fancy suburb of a large, American city, then I
lived sans car in that city, now I live in a rural area. In none of
those places would I risk the safety of myself or my car with a bumper
sticker that some jerk would find objectionable.

I didn't even put a political bumper sticker on during our recent
Presidential election. People get nuts over this stuff.

Medusa

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

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

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Atheism-vs-Christianity - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links