Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 26 new messages in 12 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 11:33 am
From: Neil Kelsey

On Dec 2, 11:25 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 10:37 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 8:23 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 1, 6:31 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Hello, I am a Christian. An atheist friend of mine is here in Simi
> > > > Valley, California and challenged me to post here.
>
> > > > He's quite sure that I will be banned because of my education in
> > > > religious antiquity, so I accepted the challenge.
>
> > > > We're visiting a friend. Tomorrow, we're both going to separate
> > > > directions.
>
> > > Hi, Roger Pearse. You're really bad at spoofing. You will not be
> > > banned because of your education in religious antiquity. From what I
> > > recall you were banned from google groups for spoofing to begin with.
>
> > > Haven't learned your lesson, have you?
>
> > This is Roger Pearse? Are you sure?
>
> No, he's not sure. But, Rappoccio knows that Roger is a Tertullian
> expert. I would say the he made an educated guess, but I'm not
> obligated to divulge my identity yet.

I don't consider you to be a credible source for anything.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Awakenings
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/c7bcb4123e4127f1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 11:37 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>wrote:

>
> Since it is clear that I won't get any reasonable response for Turner
> until I answer this, I'll answer it now ...
>
> On Nov 28, 4:14 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 27, 1:10 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Treebeard <
> allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > > >wrote:
>
> > > > And yet you people continually post these fantasies in which Dev
> leads an
> > > > army of atheists on a pogrom against theists, exterminating anyone
> who
> > > > believes in God(s). In order to hold this view as a remote
> possibility,
> > > > you'd have to think that Dev is MORE restrained online than he would
> be
> > > in
> > > > real life. That he takes ability to continue posting in a Google
> Group
> > > much
> > > > more seriously than the ability to continue living. This, of course,
> is
> > > > nothing less than absurd. If Dev DID abuse his power here, using the
> > > > banhammer at will, then you MIGHT have a little more of a point. But
> you
> > > > know as well as anyone that he doesn't, so you paranoid persecution
> > > > fantasies, like every other paranoid Christian persecution fantasy,
> is
> > > > utterly and completely unfounded.
> >
> > > Well, a few points that you've missed here:
> >
> > > 1) I never stated that Dev would lead an army of atheists on a pogrom
> > > against theists. I stated that it is easy to see HOW his statements
> > > could lead to that.
> >
> > Really splitting hairs here, Allan.
>
> You don't get to claim any notion of "splitting hairs" when I'm
> clarifying my own intentions. This is how I meant the statement to be
> taken; take it or leave it.

No, you were splitting hairs because you claimed you weren't being paranoid
because you didn't say Dev himself would lead the movement, which is really
beside the point.

>
>
> > Whether you think Dev will actively lead
> > an army or will simply provide the rallying cry for such an army, you are
> > paranoid.
>
> Except that we all know that constant refrains of how one group is
> subhuman to another do, in fact, lead to people believing that and
> treating them as such. Especially when that is considered the
> rational and logical position (despite having no reason or logic
> behind it) One consequence of that is that some unstable individuals
> may indeed decide that they deserve to die, as was supposedly
> rationally and logically espoused.

So why is Dev (or anyone else) responsible for what some unstable
individuals do? Shouldn't it be, well, the UNSTABLE INDIVIDUALS who are
responsible?

>
>
> If Dev's claim is indeed rational and logical and that his stance that
> theists are inferior is rationally and logically justified and that
> the claim that the world would be better off with theists dead is
> indeed rationally and logically justified, why wouldn't rational and
> logical people accept that that is the action to take? Are you now
> claiming that Dev doesn't even believe that his arguments are rational
> and logical?

I'm claiming that his death wishes against theists are not serious. His
other arguments are rational and logical to him.

>
>
> It is not paranoia when we know that it can occur.

...What? Dev, do we still have the Theists R Smart quote list? Can I
nominate this?

"It's not paranoia when we know that it can occur." Wow. So if some
wild-eyed man knocked frantically on his door and said that the CIA was
after him to try and place a chip in his head while he slept, Allan would
let him duck the feds in his house, and probably start sleeping with a gun
under his pillow in case They tried to get him, too. Because, you know, that
can occur, and is therefore not paranoid.

> Dev is smart
> enough to know that precisely that sort of propaganda is what causes
> many of the genocides and violence in all sorts of areas -- even,
> since he and you say it, religious areas. So to accuse me of paranoia
> when any rational and intelligent person knows that it CAN occur is
> utterly disingenuous.

The internet is serious business, huh?

>
>
> The best you can say is that few people will actually be influenced by
> such posts in a group as this to have this have any traction in
> reality. Putting aside the whole way grassroots movements start, all
> that would be saying is that what Dev is saying is unlikely to have
> any influence, which again begs the question of why he's saying it,
> and saying it repeatedly.

If you can't win an army of devoted followers there's no point in posting
anything?

> If he doesn't expect his words to have any
> real impact, why use the "shock tactics"?

Probably because it's become quite evident that kind, docile debate does
nothing.

> And if he does expect them
> to have a real impact, should he not be concerned about his shock
> tactics overstepping the message he is supposedly attempting to
> convey?

Again, why should he be responsible for what some hypothetical unstable
individuals do?

>
>
> > The fact remains that it's quite clear (as outlined in my response
> > to you above) that Dev does not seriously believe that he or anyone else
> > should go around killing theists.
>
> We only have his word for that, really.

No, we also have his behavior, which is what I pointed out above.

> I'm agreeing with you, but I
> can certainly see how someone coming across this for the first time
> may wonder. I only doubt because I asked him explicitly what he
> wanted done about theism and killing was not on the list. Giving him
> the benefit of the doubt, I accept that.
>
> >
> > > I was being moderate, actually, and accepting
> > > that while Dev may not do it himself, his words could indeed incite
> > > others to take things that strongly and actually do that. I mean,
> > > come on; he strongly and repeatedly advocates that theists should be
> > > killed in general and specifically, and claims that it is the only
> > > rational position to take (despite there being precious little
> > > rationality in it). Are you saying that those writings could not be
> > > used as a basis for such actions, especially considering how
> > > "convincing" the atheists here insist they are?
> >
> > Oh, please, Allan. I have not seen a single atheist here say "You know
> what?
> > Dev's right--we SHOULD go kill theists!" (except MAYBE in obvious
> jest.When
> > we agree with what he says, we are referring to the good rational points
> he
> > makes amid his vitriol and violent fantasies. And whether or not you like
> to
> > admit it, he does make a lot of those good points, if you don't get
> yourself
> > caught up in the fantasies.
>
> Let me restate what it means to be on my explicit "Do not reply" list:

Why exactly should I care?

>
> The ability to make good points, but that any discussions always bog
> down into something that makes discussion impossible. For Dev, that's
> the "You don't deserve to live" rant. So I claim that for Dev it's
> the opposite: he starts with good points and ends with rants, making
> discussion with him pointless.

No, not pointless, if you are willing to actually engage him on his good
points (which you here acknowledge that he makes).

>
>
> That being said, not all atheists are as -- let me say -- strongly
> attached to non-violence as some of the ones here are. I don't direct
> it at the posters here, necessarily, but at making such statements to
> a large public audience. This group has over 5000 members, and that
> doesn't count the lurkers: are you going to claim that they are all so
> kindly disposed?

I'm going to claim that it's highly, highly unlikely that any lurker will
read Dev's posts and then go out and kill someone, yes.

>
>
> Basically, arguing by dehumanizing your opponent is very, very
> dangerous. We've seen all throughout history what it leads to. So
> why defend it as a useful strategy?

I don't, which is why I don't use it (also, as I believe I mentioned, I
don't find the distinction between "person" and "non-person" to be useful or
well-defined).

>
>
> Additionally, let me say that I am convinced on reflection and noting
> Dev's responses to atheists who challenge his strategy that Dev's goal
> does not seem to be simply to use "shock tactics", but instead to make
> it undesirable for people to respond to him.

What makes you think that?

> As I said above, all of
> his discussions tend to devolve to him insulting and calling
> irrational and not deserving of consideration people who disagree with
> him. No one likes that, and so it will discourage people from
> disagreeing with him, which means he wins by default ... and then gets
> to claim that he "won" and that his arguments cannot be opposed, when
> he dealt with the opposition with insults and flat-out assertions of
> them being incorrect. I've seen this personally in the debate I had
> with him in the past; while I will not claim to have won, I certainly
> didn't lose since what I said was not addressed. Dev does not address
> the comments of those who oppose him, and these rants are just another
> way to win without having to engage in discussion.

That's not the behavior I've seen of him. I've seen him address the comments
AND rant away. Rants and rational discussion are not mutually exclusive.
Likewise, avoiding rants does not make your discussion any more rational, as
Brock so eloquently proves each and every time he posts.

>
>
> No one who honestly reads what he says can deny that if this isn't the
> only behaviour he exhibits, it's certainly the most common.

I honestly read what he says and I deny that he avoids discussion, so you
are wrong once again.

>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > I have argued in the past against what he says without referring to
> > > whether or not he'd do it himself or even really wants to see it
> > > happen.
> >
> > > 2) You are making an assumption that someone cannot refuse to ban
> > > posters and still advocate for their deaths.
> >
> > Yes, I am. You really think that's not a reasonable assumption? And you
> > still maintain you're not afflicted by paranoid delusions?
>
> Let me list all the ways in which the first could be true and the
> latter false:
>
> 1) They may be doing it for show, just to get people to make the
> invalid deduction that you are making.
> 2) They may feel strongly in favour of freedom of speech, but not
> believe that there is a right to life at all.
> 3) They may feel that denying speech has bad consequences that
> outweigh the benefit due to the difficulty of determining before
> things are said what is and isn't valid, but feel strongly that
> killing off an entire group does not have sufficient bad consequences
> to outweigh the benefits (not that this is in fact the "argument" that
> Dev claims to be making).
> 4) They may hold that as a moderator they have to follow the rules of
> the board but that outside the board they have no such compunctions.
> 5) They may feel that they need freedom of speech to advocate their
> more stronger position: that a group should be killed.
>
> There is no logical or deductive link between supporting freedom of
> speech and not advocating killing someone. Your argument is invalid,
> and is based on more than that: it is based on a belief system that
> you think Dev has. But at that point, that is neither here nor there;
> I have never claimed that Dev wants theists killed, and my comment
> here was just to show that your logic and reasoning is utterly,
> utterly wrong.

You see, Allan, those of use who live in the real world live by evaluating
various possibilities according to logical and empirical observations. I
never denied that it wasn't POSSIBLE that something like any of the above
are true. Hell, it's POSSIBLE that Dev is actually stockpiling a bunker full
of explosives and ammunition in order to destroy a dozen churches. It's
POSSIBLE that you are, for that matter. But given what we know, we can make
a reasonable assumption that none of the above are, in actuality, true. And
since you can't, that means there is something wrong with you.

>
>
> > > 3) This webcomic author puts it so much better than me (and he isn't a
> > > theist):
> >
> > >http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2122.html
> >
> > > "Notice how the characters here have begun using the dehumanising "it"
> > > pronoun when referring to Gollum.
> >
> > > This is one of the first and most powerful things you can do to
> > > another person or group of people whom you are determined to hate.
> > > Stop regarding them as human beings, in the small patterns of things
> > > such as how you refer to them. This spreads to how you think about
> > > them, and through your speech patterns to other people.
> >
> > > Dictators and tyrants have known and used this technique for thousands
> > > of years. The enemy deserves no mercy, deserves to be eradicated,
> > > because they are not really people. Say it enough times, over a long
> > > enough period, and people will start to believe you. Sadly, that long
> > > enough period is not very long. And once people start believing that
> > > the enemy isn't human, isn't worthy of respect, doesn't deserve the
> > > same rights and freedoms that you enjoy, doesn't deserve to live...
> >
> > > You end up making people comfortable with the idea of denying rights,
> > > liberties, and eventually life itself to whatever group you started to
> > > refer to in dehumanising terms.
> >
> > > Beware people who talk like some other group of people deserves any
> > > less dignity than anyone else."
> >
> > A webcomic. Fantastic source.
>
> Ad hominem fallacy by definition.

I do not think you know the definition of "ad hominem fallacy".

>
>
> To help you avoid fallacies, let me ask you if you think that what was
> said above is correct or incorrect.

I disagree. I think pedophiles deserve less dignity than anyone else. I
think serial murderers deserve less dignity than anyone else. I think
rapists deserve less dignity than anyone else. And I have yet to go on a
murderous rampage against any of the above groups.

>
>
> > > I posted this in my reply to the "Killing Theists" thread. Dev is
> > > smart enough to know this, and persists in doing so anyway. He may
> > > not want theists dead, but he certainly seems to want people to
> > > consider us less than human. That should make anyone suspicious of
> > > his motives. (This ties back to 1).
> >
> > > 4) The problem is less what Dev says, but the applause that he gets
> > > for saying it from the theists here, as if his anger is righteous and
> > > we are getting what we deserve.
> >
> > Again, Allan, where has any atheist seriously applauded his death
> fantasies?
> > You're making things up.
>
> The main atheists here applaud his posts; it is not always obvious
> what they are applauding.

It's obvious to those of us without severe mental impairments.

>
>
> At least rappoccio and Max and Kippers made it clear that they
> disliked what he said.
>
> >
> > > Yet he directs attacks at me, who has
> > > said that atheists are not irrational, are not immoral, and generally
> > > won't even go to Hell when they die, and that I expect to go precisely
> > > to the same place as me. Why do I deserve death for basically
> > > claiming that atheists are no different from me, in general? And why
> > > would people applaud calls for the death -- and specific deaths -- of
> > > other people?
> >
> > Whatever you think of Dev, you have to admit that he makes a very good
> > point: you theists are all happy to complain about his death threats
> against
> > you, but none of you--not a SINGLE Christian--has EVER decried the things
> > which the Bible says will (justly) happen to us unbelievers. Things
> which
> > are thousands of times worse than anything Dev has ever described against
> > theists. Why is that?
>
> Such as?

Really? Do you really need me to go through the Bible and show you the
verses commanding the slaughter of unbelievers, of their fates at the hand
of Our Loving God? I know you're stupid, but you're not as ignorant as that.

> Remember that I have said, even above, that atheists in
> general are not going to Hell and are likely to end up in the same
> place as I am, and have said repeatedly that they should not be killed
> or tortured (including one monumental rant to TG about how I likely
> consider killing non-believers because they are non-believers more
> heinous than she does). So what have I not decried?
>
> Again, about your best claim would be Hell, but I decried it above.
> Did you not read what I said?

So if you think that what the Bible describes is deplorable, why and how are
you a Christian?

>
>
>
>
> >
>

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 11:45 am
From: "Brock Organ"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Turner Hayes <lordlacolith@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If he doesn't expect his words to have any
>> real impact, why use the "shock tactics"?
>
> Probably because it's become quite evident that kind, docile debate does
> nothing.

Or rather, atheists without the invective and vitriol of the "new
atheism" would have to rely upon position instead of vituperation to
advance their views, and that perhaps, lacking in position, only the
vituperation is left. :)

Regards,

Brock

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:13 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Brock Organ <brockorgan@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Turner Hayes <lordlacolith@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> If he doesn't expect his words to have any
> >> real impact, why use the "shock tactics"?
> >
> > Probably because it's become quite evident that kind, docile debate does
> > nothing.
>
> Or rather, atheists without the invective and vitriol of the "new
> atheism" would have to rely upon position instead of vituperation to
> advance their views, and that perhaps, lacking in position, only the
> vituperation is left. :)

Or rather, Christians without the deliberate misleading and hypocrisy of
"standard theism" would have to rely on reason, and they are unable to do
that. :)

Regards,

Brockner

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> >
>

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:18 pm
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 2:45 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Or rather, atheists without the invective and vitriol of the "new
> atheism" would have to rely upon position instead of vituperation to

Bla Bla Bla I love jesus Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla The bible
is true Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla If you do not agree with
me Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You will go to hell
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Fear god Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am right Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Objective truth of first principles Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You are
wrong Bla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Westminster
Confession Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Wikipedia Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Love god is not the same as poke out your eye with a pointed stick
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Cesar
crossed the Rubicon Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla and 1.50$ will get you a coffee at most truck stops Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am never wrong Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla mankind is not the
measurement of all things Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla I tremble before my god Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Humans are born with sin Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Only Jesus can save you from yourself Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Or not :) Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla

Yes Brock, we know, we have heard it all before.
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 11:39 am
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> On Dec 2, 10:22 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 3:58 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:53 AM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Dec 2, 3:36 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Trance Gemini <
> trancegemi...@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Turner Hayes <
> lordlacol...@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> I must be out of the loop here. When LiamZep started posting
> about
> > > > Liam
> > > > > >> being banned, I figured he was having paranoid fits, as usual
> for
> > > > theists
> > > > > >> and their ilk. But Liam was actually banned? Out of curiosity,
> what
> > > > was his
> > > > > >> offense?
> >
> > > > > > We found proof that he was Wanderer.
> >
> > > > > Seriously? Crazy shit.
> >
> > > > chx
> > > > and i found proof it could not be him as they both posted on the same
> > > > threat within 4 minutes apart.
> >
> > > ...Because it would be impossible to post under two names in 4 minutes,
> > > clearly.
> >
> > chx
> > i'm not an IT man, you tell me if it is possible to type a post, send,
> > log off, log on as someone else, type a reply, send - all in less than
> > 4 minutes.
> >
> > now i saw another case today where two people are said to be one post
> > and reply within 2 minutes.
> >
> > i think you blokes are pushing it now.
>
> Paranoia abounds. This Trance and Woodbride are now claiming that I am
> LiamToo.
>
> Wow! I think that I'm going to win the bet that I'll be banned too,

The bet was that you'd be banned for your education in "religious antiquity"
specifically, not just that you'd be banned for something.

>
> >
>

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:01 pm
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 2:17 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> How would you explain the difference in IP address? I was out in ACRD
> and find out that LiamToo was posting using a local ISP in Kansas,
> while Wanderer was posting with an AOL ISP.
>
> What is the need to use two ISPs to just post here and other groups?
> That's expensive.

Some one did mention the existence of an IP anonymizer.
_________________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:09 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Tertullian <RogerTertullian@yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> On Dec 2, 11:12 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 1:22 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > chx
> > > > > and i found proof it could not be him as they both posted on the
> same
> > > > > threat within 4 minutes apart.
> >
> > Easy.
> >
> > Two computers in the same house or office comes to mind, such as a PC
> > and a laptop...
> >
> > Or, you could use a virutal drive hosted on a primary drive...
> > Switching from one to the other takes less than a second.
> > Look up Virtual PC, you piece of shit who likes to mnake fun of people
> > sharing their issues with mental illness.
>
> How would you explain the difference in IP address? I was out in ACRD
> and find out that LiamToo was posting using a local ISP in Kansas,
> while Wanderer was posting with an AOL ISP.
>
> What is the need to use two ISPs to just post here and other groups?
> That's expensive.

http://www.torproject.org/

I'm not an expert on Tor, but as far as I understand, the way it works is
that it routes each request you make through other computers using Tor
before sending it off to the final destination, so each link in the chain
only knows about the computer before it and the final destination only knows
about the end node (which may or may not change with each request, I'm not
sure). And that's not the only randomizer out there, I'm sure.

He could also use a proxy; a computer through which you make a request, so
that the final destination (e.g., groups.google.com) only knows about the
proxy machine, not the original requester. He could have used a proxy for
one of his accounts and his real IP for another, or even two different
proxies. That could be done in FAR less than 4, or even 2, minutes--unless
he was really, really slow.

>
> >
>

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:11 pm
From: "Turner Hayes"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:54 AM, thomas <tdierden@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.

You're in a place known only as..."The Twilight Zone".

>
>
> thomas
>
> On Nov 27, 11:49 am, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Wanderer then LiamToo, who would be next and why?
>
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Atheist are very loving people. They love because they feel love...
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e11e82fadbcfcef7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 11:42 am
From: checkers

On Dec 2, 9:32 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 11:10 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 8:52 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 2, 10:46 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > -snip- getting too long
>
> > > > chx
> > > > hey, what's with all the _non sequitur_ these are all void. you could
> > > > just have left them unanswered.
>
> > > Nah, I enjoy pointing out your fallacies. It's a hobby.
>
> > > Now then, let's get back to my question, which you've avoided twice
> > > now:
>
> > > DO YOU NOT CONSIDER YOUR CLAIM* TO BE TRUE?
>
> > > * Your claim is: "not believing in satan does not let him go away"- Hide quoted text -
>
> > chx
> > why don't you test it. see if satan goes away. you will get the answer
> > that way. if someone mentions satan again then _we_ know i was right.
>
> I can't tell if Satan went away because I can't tell he even exists. I
> can't tell if he's here. So step 1, show Satan exists. That's your
> task - it's your assertion.
>
> Step 2, once you've proved that Satan exists, would be to show that he
> doesn't go away from the people don't believe in him.
>
> And mentioning Satan does not make him exist, so I won't know you are
> right if someone mentions Satan. That you would even say that
> demonstrates that you haven't even attained the reasoning abilities of
> a chimp.
>
> > see, i made a comment, i did not state a fact. you blurted out that
> > your comment was more - a truth :o
>
> You made an assertion. An assertion is either true or false.

chx
nope, i made a comment on what someone else asserted. go check. what
you are doing is dodgeing the main issue. you said your claim was
true. you have a task - prove it. now stop pissing against the wall
and get on with it.

:-)

> Giving you Grade 5 English lessons fairly boring.

chx
yep, being on the same level will be boring and tough. if you were on
grade 6 or higher, it would be easier for you ;)

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:01 pm
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 2:13 pm, Mary Wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:

> Everyone herded goats back then. People had to eat. These were God-fearing men, who later became Saints.

Everyone?
They all became saints?
Name one saint from 500 BCE.
_________________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:14 pm
From: checkers

On Dec 2, 8:58 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 1:05 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > chx
> > you don't get it. it was not embedded in a message from you, there was
>
> No, YOU don't get it.
>
> If you are too dumb and unable to see who posted a message by looking
> at the handle name in the message list, it is not my problem.

chx

here is the link, see for yourself;

http://groups.google.co.za/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/743501fcb11f50db/ca776615e858ca7e?hl=en&q=impersonate&lnk=nl&

and here he is trying to defend his position just as you are;

http://groups.google.co.za/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/fc0ff4ffb8ca91e/ee7b23232b335164?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=impersonate#ee7b23232b335164

as you can see all the mods of today was there. they were in agreement
then - the question is if they still hold to the same standards. you
are atheist after all.

i guess this is the test of all times in AvC. let the truth be known
to all.

>
> <Whining snipped>
> _________________________________
> I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
> -- Ruth Hurmence Green

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Christians get the message.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/11511ccd36fe0d4c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 11:51 am
From: Treebeard

On Dec 2, 2:23 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 1:25 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 1:06 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 11:43 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > And how do you know these people weren't religious?
>
> > > > If you want to seriously assert that the people targetting random
> > > > religions over gay rights did it because of their religion, I think I
> > > > need say no more ...
>
> > > Indeed you need not, since it would clearly demonstrate our point.
>
> > No, because anyone who is even remotely logical and rational can see
> > how ridiculous a proposition that is.
>
> Why is it ridiculous? I know plenty of religious homosexuals. I
> wouldn't put this kind of thing past Keith MacNevins, who I'm sure you
> remember as the homosexual kinda-Christian kinda-agnostic kinda-Hindu
> but-all-bat-shit-nuts-asswipe who used to come here.

Religious homosexuals are unlikely to target random religious people
in retaliation for their vote on the topic ...

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:03 pm
From: rappoccio

On Dec 2, 2:51 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2:23 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 1:25 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 1:06 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 11:43 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > And how do you know these people weren't religious?
>
> > > > > If you want to seriously assert that the people targetting random
> > > > > religions over gay rights did it because of their religion, I think I
> > > > > need say no more ...
>
> > > > Indeed you need not, since it would clearly demonstrate our point.
>
> > > No, because anyone who is even remotely logical and rational can see
> > > how ridiculous a proposition that is.
>
> > Why is it ridiculous? I know plenty of religious homosexuals. I
> > wouldn't put this kind of thing past Keith MacNevins, who I'm sure you
> > remember as the homosexual kinda-Christian kinda-agnostic kinda-Hindu
> > but-all-bat-shit-nuts-asswipe who used to come here.
>
> Religious homosexuals are unlikely to target random religious people
> in retaliation for their vote on the topic ...

Why? Religious people kill each other over other things.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:05 pm
From: rappoccio

On Dec 2, 2:22 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:07 PM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 11:56 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:50 AM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Thomas Jefferson put it better:
>
> >> > "[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious
> >> > worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced,
> >> > restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall
> >> > otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but
> >> > that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain,
> >> > their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no
> >> > wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
>
> >> Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion.
>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Brock
>
> > Firstly: Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you.
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights"

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should "make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church &
State."

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
>
> > Secondly: Where are the words "freedom of religion" in the US
> > Constitution?
>
> Right next to the words "checks and balances", I might suppose. ;D
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

So you admit they're not actually there, then?

So you admit you interpreted what was in the Constitution to mean you
have "freedom of religion"?

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:26 pm
From: "Brock Organ"

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:05 PM, rappoccio <rappoccio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2:22 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:07 PM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Dec 2, 11:56 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:50 AM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Thomas Jefferson put it better:
>>
>> >> > "[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious
>> >> > worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced,
>> >> > restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall
>> >> > otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but
>> >> > that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain,
>> >> > their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no
>> >> > wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
>>
>> >> Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion.
>>
>> >> Regards,
>>
>> >> Brock
>>
>> > Firstly: Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you.
>>
>> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>> Rights"
>
> "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
> people which declared that their legislature should "make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
> exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church &
> State."

Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
>>
>> > Secondly: Where are the words "freedom of religion" in the US
>> > Constitution?
>>
>> Right next to the words "checks and balances", I might suppose. ;D
>
> So you admit they're not actually there, then?
>
> So you admit you interpreted what was in the Constitution to mean you
> have "freedom of religion"?

Rather, I note that in the same way one cannot wish away the premises
of "checks and balances" or "separation of powers"[1] from the
Constitution simply because its text does not explicitly incorporate
them similarly does a disservice here.

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#United_States:_three_branches

==============================================================================
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 12:03 pm
From: dali_70

On Dec 2, 1:02 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So much for freedom of speech...
>

and freedom of religion, or lack thereof.

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:05 pm
From: ObservantEye

Did I say I was arguing for theism? My argument was mainly that
people here are more interested in being right than seeking truth or
persuading anyone. It seems this more a therapy group than anything
for some anger management class. Maybe it's arrogance on each side,
but both sides show it very differently. If it came down to the old
question of "who would you share a foxhole with," picking anyone from
these discussions would, as far as I've seen in this discussion, be a
short list... It's a bit of a dramatic illustration, but I'm seeing
some of the reasonableness of The Inquisition here...

But to answer your question, I may not have stated it clearly enough:
My statement was simply saying two things: 1) People here are adamant
that anyone who doesn't concede that the louder one is right, beyond a
shadow of a doubt, is stupid, not human, and many other insults. So
far, most responses have only proven what I've said, whereas your
response here, was thought out and did somethings besides demean my
observations. 2) Most atheists I've met just weren't convinced there
was a Prime Mover and weren't convinced there wasn't. People are so
adamant that we should be black or white. All the way either way.
Religious zealots are scary to me. Anti-religious zealots worry me
more.

I mentioned the insults? So far, here's a description of me by our
peers here:
A dishonest biased prick.
I am still spewing your bullshit about "new atheism" (actually, I've
never heard the term before this comment)
Then you are no self-respecting Christian. (apparently not)
arrogant prick
I have apparently been suffering from Alzheimer's. (wow, didn't see
that one coming)
I have an unremarkable life.
I have no feelings, no brains, no consciences, no ethics, absolutely
nothing that a human would call human. Period.

Wow, that one had a "Period." So why should I even continue? How
does one debate with that? I mean, I don't want to start with debates
proving I have feelings, brains, conscience, ethics, and that I'm
human! I mean, I need to go find those groups first, I guess...

On Dec 2, 9:14 am, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 1, 2:17 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> >arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> >agnostics.
>
> If i understand your above statement correctly, you're saying that an
> atheist is arrogant because s/he does not believe a god(s) exist.
> Whereas an agnostic is not arrogant because they're basically saying
> they're not sure one way or the other if a god(s) exist because of a
> lack of evidence either way. So wouldn't by that same logic, make a
> theist arrogant because they believe god(s) do exist.
>
> How is atheism any more arrogant then theism?

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:07 pm
From: rappoccio

I think you'd know when anyone entered your heart. It would probably
mean you're not alive anymore.

On Dec 2, 1:12 pm, Mary Wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> Woodbridge,
>
> When he enters your heart you will know.
>
> Mary Wolls
>
> > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:20:59 -0800> Subject: [AvC] Re: Congratulations> From: Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> To: Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com> > > prove there is God> > On Dec 2, 8:49 am, mary wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:> > ObservantEye,> >> > That has been my experience as well on this forum. You must have very> > thick skin to engage the atheists in this group because they are very> > angry. They have no peace with God, because they eschew his> > representatives.> >> > Mary Wolls> >> > On Dec 1, 11:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > > I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would> > > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.> >> > > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually> > > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-> > > atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,> > > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These> > > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they> > > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful> > > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture> > > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers> > > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes> > > through your keyboard with every angry jab.> >> > > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't> > > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than> > > agnostics.> >> > > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider> > > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did> > > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?> >> > > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,> > > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not> > > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the> > > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at> > > their keyboards in their dark basements.> >> > > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can> > > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates> > > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"> >> > > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you> > > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass.http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_...

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:10 pm
From: rappoccio

Here's a better idea: Go to the library on Sunday. Or hell, today.

Check out a few books:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703

http://www.amazon.com/Letter-Christian-Nation-Sam-Harris/dp/0307265773

and start reading.

On Dec 2, 2:18 pm, Mary Wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:
> Woodbridge,
>
> Go to church on Sunday. Then you will see.
>
> Mary Wolls
>
> > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:52:07 -0800> Subject: [AvC] Re: Congratulations> From: ipu.belie...@gmail.com> To: Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com> > > On Dec 2, 1:12 pm, Mary Wolls <marywo...@live.com> wrote:> > > Woodbridge,> >> > When he enters your heart you will know.> > I saw this guy on YouTube who claims that the holy spirit enters> through a hole in the back of the head...> > I am confused now.> > I really really want this magical sky being to enter my body... But,> who to believe? Why?> _________________________________> I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.> -- Ruth Hurmence Green> _________________________________________________________________
>
> You live life online. So we put Windows on the web.http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:26 pm
From: Medusa

ObservantEye;

> I have to say this, and I know it'll clump your oats, but the reality
> is that atheism is just as much a religion as any other.

If atheism is a religion, it would be a nonreligion. There is no
belief system in atheism; we just do not believe in any gods.

> I have to
> say, I've never seen anyone verbally fight for what they want near as
> furiously as I've seen atheists do. That may not fit the dictionary
> definition of religion, but it has all the same attributes. It's
> definitely a belief system, wouldn't you agree?

No. A belief system has to based on a set of beliefs. Atheism is non-
belief in gods; how can that be a religion?

Medusa

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I know your God doesn't exist.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/f1ee8b5d7f597854?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:12 pm
From: Tom Dierden

Neil Kelsey wrote:
>
> On Dec 2, 6:01 am, thomas <tdier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dag Yo,
>>
>> The Bible needs no proof, if you believe it, it is real.
>>
>
> People believed the Sun revolved around the Earth, that didn't make it
> real. So, you are wrong. I will fix your claim:
>
> The Bible needs proof, if you believe it, it still isn't real.
>
>
>> thomas
>>
>> On Oct 27, 3:00 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
>>> who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
>>> is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
>>> assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
>>> right about my assertion.]
>>>
>>> So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
>>> tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>>
> >
>
Neil,

It makes no difference if neither you, nor anyone else believes it. The
power of the living God is in the revealed word of God. The word of God
has been kept through the ages in written form, in the Holy Bible. When
the faithful read the word of God it is written in their hearts, they
see the demonstration of its power in their lives. The invisible forces
sometimes call metaphysics, or paranormal activity, or physics can be
explained in many ways. But the way of power is in the word of God. His
chosen who see God's will unfolding before him enjoy the benefits of his
goodness, as they see the good things in life, the benign, but also the
evil, and the benign. It is this discernment of good and evil, that is
the basis of the power of God. For the chosen are vessels to to manifest
this power and push back the forces of evil, and save and win souls to
the most high God. Your atheist gods are gods as well, hidden in your
denial.But when he returns and his judgment is manifest, then all things
shall be revealed, all the deceptions and all the deceivers.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nice.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/91d6751736ff8cb2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:16 pm
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 2:21 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> And nicely reported on.

25%, wow!
Sounds like Oregon and Washington State are nice places to be!
_________________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:17 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Dec 2, 10:42 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How do you know you're not breathing the wrong air?

The air in one place is typically as good as the air in any other
place. Is Asherah as good a goddess as any other divinity?

> On Nov 29, 4:12 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 5:23 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > if you're going to ask for ironclad proof of God, then you'd have to
> > > be able to suggest what type of proof would qualify.
> > > Would God have to stand on the moon and wave?
> > Even if God were to stand on the Moon and wave, we would not know that
> > it is the God of the Bible who is standing on the Moon and waving; it
> > might be Thor who is waving. How are you able to tell whether you
> > worship the same God who said "You shall have no other gods before me"?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Nicene Creed
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/0d394c723cc9d336?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:21 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

On Dec 2, 10:57 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 8:02 pm, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > The church based in Rome used to have the epithet "Mother Church" or
> > just "Church", but as a result of the Reformation, it wears the label
> > "Roman Catholic" to distinguish it from all the other denominations.
>
> Maybe you're not familiar with Ignatius of Antioch, who coined the
> word Catholic, meaning universa, long before the Council of Nicaea.
> The root word is katholikos which means, throughout the whole, that is
> universal. He went on to say that the Catholic Church in Rome holds
> the" presidency in love"
>
> Tertullian also pointed out where the Catholic Church is, long before
> the Council of Nicaea. He said that the Catholic and Apostolic Church,
> is in Rome.

If it is only in one place, then it is not universal. Meaning
universal but not being universal would make Catholic just a name like
the Universal in Universal Studios or Universal Exports (the company
that James Bond pretends to work for when he travels in disguise).

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Weird, yet strangely compelling French Army Cartoon
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/0c9a1bae0d243dcb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:26 pm
From: Answer_42

On Dec 2, 1:49 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:

Great animation.

Those who beleive in faith will like it!
_________________________________
I am fond of saying that reading the Bible turned me into an atheist.
-- Ruth Hurmence Green

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

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 - 26 new messages in 12 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links