Atheism vs Christianity: Atheism-vs-Christianity - 26 new messages in 15 topics

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

Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Attention, Brock needed.
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e6ee90a2ad693f5e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:32 pm
From: I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN

On 1 Dec, 21:54, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> This is very true
> Some Christians themself say they are hypocrites and are outward nice
> atleast and will help Judaist move furniture to new apartment.
> So some Christians like that are SMALL hypocrites
> But Borgan is BIG hypocrite because he does not accept that he is
> doing hypocrisy even with PROOF like Answer_42 showed here
>
> On Dec 1, 4:45 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > ALL Christians are hypocrites. It is literally impossible for a
> > Christian to be anything but a hypocrite because it will always find
> > fault with beliefs, actions and convictions more rational than its
> > own.

I just want to say that your website is the sickest website I have
ever seen. You always complain that you are the victims but you are
worse than the nazis themselves. I usually don't use profanity but
what the fuck: you mother fuckers are the reason for all the sickness
and the diseases in this world and someday you are going to fuked for
god the face of this earth. its just a matter of time

YOU GOD DAMN BASTARDS THINK YOU ARE GOING TO GET AWAY WITH ALL THIS
HATE! YOU STUPID, ILLEGITIMATE PEOPLE! OUR POPULATION IS THAT OF 1.9
BILLION! YES 1.9 BILLION, AND WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU? 20-30 MILLION
(ARGUABLY)? HA! YOU HAVE 1 COUNTRY TO SCATTER TO, LIKE THE FILTHY
PIGS YOU ARE! YOU ARE THE LITTER AND DIRT OF THIS WORLD. YOU KILLED
JESUS! YOU WANT NOTHING MORE THAN TO KILL THE CHRISTIAN RACE! YOUR
PEOPLE CONVERT DAILY BY SEEING YOUR BITCHES L ILL AND SLAUGHTER
INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS. WE KNOW YOUR KIND ARE THOSE THAT WILL SUFFER IN
THE FURY OF HELL. MAY YOU BE CONDEMNED AND THE ILLEGITIMATE INSTITUTE
OF atheism

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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:39 pm
From: Woodbridge

Ha ha More PROOF that Borgan is BIG hypocrite for tolerating Christian
I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN

On Dec 1, 6:32 pm, I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:
> On 1 Dec, 21:54, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > This is very true
> > Some Christians themself say they are hypocrites and are outward nice
> > atleast and will help Judaist move furniture to new apartment.
> > So some Christians like that are SMALL hypocrites
> > But Borgan is BIG hypocrite because he does not accept that he is
> > doing hypocrisy even with PROOF like Answer_42 showed here
>
> > On Dec 1, 4:45 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > ALL Christians are hypocrites. It is literally impossible for a
> > > Christian to be anything but a hypocrite because it will always find
> > > fault with beliefs, actions and convictions more rational than its
> > > own.
>
> I just want to say that your website is the sickest website I have
> ever seen. You always complain that you are the victims but you are
> worse than the nazis themselves. I usually don't use profanity but
> what the fuck: you mother fuckers are the reason for all the sickness
> and the diseases in this world and someday you are going to fuked for
> god the face of this earth. its just a matter of time
>
> YOU GOD DAMN BASTARDS THINK YOU ARE GOING TO GET AWAY WITH ALL THIS
> HATE! YOU STUPID, ILLEGITIMATE PEOPLE! OUR POPULATION IS THAT OF 1.9
> BILLION! YES 1.9 BILLION, AND WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU? 20-30 MILLION
> (ARGUABLY)? HA! YOU HAVE 1 COUNTRY TO SCATTER TO, LIKE THE FILTHY
> PIGS YOU ARE! YOU ARE THE LITTER AND DIRT OF THIS WORLD. YOU KILLED
> JESUS! YOU WANT NOTHING MORE THAN TO KILL THE CHRISTIAN RACE! YOUR
> PEOPLE CONVERT DAILY BY SEEING YOUR BITCHES L ILL AND SLAUGHTER
> INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS. WE KNOW YOUR KIND ARE THOSE THAT WILL SUFFER IN
> THE FURY OF HELL. MAY YOU BE CONDEMNED AND THE ILLEGITIMATE INSTITUTE
> OF atheism
>
>
Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #2, 4, 5:

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bible Movie
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/d56c1d21db8e6745?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:33 pm
From: scenario_dave

The essence of the medium contradicts this - if you intend to make a
profit. In my original set up, I stated that the producers were
making a high quality cartoon for very little money because of future
advances in technology. The people making it are true believers who
are making a video bible as a labor of love. If they are willing to
make the bible on 100 or even a thousand 2 hour discs, they could make
a movie and leave nothing out. They may even distribute it on the
internet for a nominal sum to cover costs.

My major question is, what would the reaction of theist be to making
the bible more accessable to people? When the bible was translated
from Latin into English, many people complained and there were even
laws passed against it. Catholic mass used to be in Latin and many
people complained bitterly about the change to English.

Would theist generally welcome or condemn an honest video version of
the bible?

What would the media do?

There are many beautiful parts of the bible but there are also many
terrifying parts.

On Dec 1, 9:02 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 9:58 pm, scenario_dave <scenario_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A thought experiment.
>
> Too frequently, such an incantation is just a synonym for arguing a
> sock puppet issue for some atheist.
>
> > They do not leave anything out.
>
> The essence of the medium contradicts this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:36 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Brock <brockorgan@gmail.com> wrote:

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

I agree Brock.

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

--
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 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:37 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbridge@archaeologist.com>wrote:

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

YES!

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

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:40 pm
From: Woodbridge

But why Borgan does not say YES?
Because he tolerates priest raping little children

On Dec 1, 6:37 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > So Vatican and other churches should give Christian priests who raped
> > little children to police YES?
>
> YES!
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 5:16 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 27, 7:57 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This is an issue that I hope atheists and theists can unite on and
> > support
> > > > the cause together.
>
> > > It would be a wonderful holiday season if this issue would have an
> > > impact on people's minds and thoughts and behavior and would lead to
> > > positive change.
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Brock
>
> --
> 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

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:43 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbridge@archaeologist.com>wrote:

>
> But why Borgan does not say YES?

Good Question ;-)

>
> Because he tolerates priest raping little children

>
> On Dec 1, 6:37 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > So Vatican and other churches should give Christian priests who raped
> > > little children to police YES?
> >
> > YES!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 1, 5:16 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 27, 7:57 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > This is an issue that I hope atheists and theists can unite on and
> > > support
> > > > > the cause together.
> >
> > > > It would be a wonderful holiday season if this issue would have an
> > > > impact on people's minds and thoughts and behavior and would lead to
> > > > positive change.
> >
> > > > Regards,
> >
> > > > Brock
> >
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> companion.
> > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > Andromeda
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mental health abuse
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/e2b54ba1ea1ec4a6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:37 pm
From: Observer

On Nov 28, 8:32 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 27, 9:55 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 27, 10:57 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > <snip> they are human beings and that *there is no good
> > > > > in them.*
>
> > > > Well, fuck you too.
>
> > > I was quoting the Bible.
>
> > Observer
> > Are you so completely stupid that you fail to understand that bible
> > quotes , for people who understand that the bible is just a
> > compilation of primitive superstitious myths plagiarized from even
> > more ancient superstitious nonsense is disgusting and servers no
> > purpose but to demonstrate that you have so little understanding of
> > your hideous superstitious filth that you must quote rather than to
> > delineate with reason what the content of that stupid fucking book of
> > trash means?
>
> > Point of reference google 16 crucified saviors and you will see that
> > there are over 44,000 separate websites dedicated to the subject.
>
> This is where the book *The Two Babylons* is so good.

Observer
Why does it discuss the fact that the story of the new testament was
just plagiarized from previous superstitious filth and was never
actually a story which reflected any actualities related to the
mythical Jesus? Thea you are so fucking dimwitted that I am afraid
that Alzheimer's if eminent.

Yes, I know it was
> written by a pastor, but he presents all that you are telling me here.
> There will always be *false gods*, and one *true God*, which is the God of
> Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is the God that made the earth in the first
> place and *hung the world in space*.

Your poor demented preacher man is not only a purveyor of
superstitious filth but a hole in the fabric of human dignity ,
honesty, and our interrelated responsibilities to each other. This
hideously stupid man can apparently not make an honest living
providing usefully goods or services so he chose to fleece his friends
and neighbors by the use of incredible deception. The mentally
defenseless , such as you, are unable to avoid the hideous thrust of
his dishonesty.

How terrible it is that such scumb as this and all of the other liars
for Jesus and their own pocket books can not be made to pay for the
damage they do to what would have otherwise been decent human breings.

You , poor Thea , are not intellectually astute enough to have any
concept of the actualities of this world and have been mind fucked
into a stupor from which you will never escape . It is not to you that
I write but to those who read here so that they may avoid being
deceived into a life of drone like servitude to the mindless concepts
of Christian superstitious filth.

Psychonomist

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am sorry I didn't tell you where it said this --
> > > go look it up for yourself.
> > > In saying there is *no good in us*, it is because God said He had to send
> > > Jesus in order to make us whole.
>
> > Observer
> > Please show us that quote directly from god.
>
> > You imbeciles can not even offer scientifically substantive data for
> > the existence of a god and you expect us to believe that you who know
> > what it would have said if it existed.
>
> Luke 18:19
> Jesus is talking with the rich young ruler and he says:
> *Why callest thou me good? None is good, [except] one, that is, God!!!*
>
> Psalms 86:5 - *For thou, Lord, are good, and ready to forgive, and plenteous
> in mercy unto all those who call upon thee.*
>
> I'll take God up on this and call on Him, and let Jesus *direct my paths*.
> It is more *joyous to dwell in the court yard of the house of God, than in
> hell.*
>
>
>
>
>
> > To give us life. To get us to heaven by
> > > covering *our sins* with His Blood, so that God could not see our
> > > degradation and poverty of spirit.
>
> > Observer
> > A total lie fabricated by a bunch of uneducated pathological liars who
> > knew next to nothing of the world in which they lived. Such filth is
> > the produce of plagiarism,hatred of their fellow men, and fear of the
> > unknown.
>
> > Village idiots, those who are devoid of useful educations, psychotics
> > and those made gullible because of other pathological
> > considerations , believe such filth . It has become obvious that you
> > are a composite of all three.
>
> > > It's a neat way for us to only have to accept what Jesus did for us when
> > He
> > > died in our place.
>
> > Observer
> > If Jesus ever lived at all , and any of that outragesously stupid
> > story was true he was a small time , rather dimwitted, criminal
> > executed for crimes against the state.
>
> > In fact, I believe that if you add anything, like trying
> > > to be *good enough*, you are making salvation null and void.
>
> > Observer
> > That from which people need salvation is the hideous fucking filthy
> > superstition to which norons, like you, are adicted by the production
> > of endogines opiats. You are no more than a fucking opiat junky
>
> > Psychonomist
>
> > > > _________________________________________________
> > > > The spectacle of what is called religion, or at any rate organized
> > > > religion, in India and elsewhere, has filled us with horror, and I
> > > > have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of it.
> > > > -- Jawaharlal Nehru- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:45 pm
From: thea

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Observer <mayorskid@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Nov 28, 8:32 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 27, 9:55 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Nov 27, 10:57 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > <snip> they are human beings and that *there is no good
> > > > > > in them.*
> >
> > > > > Well, fuck you too.
> >
> > > > I was quoting the Bible.
> >
> > > Observer
> > > Are you so completely stupid that you fail to understand that bible
> > > quotes , for people who understand that the bible is just a
> > > compilation of primitive superstitious myths plagiarized from even
> > > more ancient superstitious nonsense is disgusting and servers no
> > > purpose but to demonstrate that you have so little understanding of
> > > your hideous superstitious filth that you must quote rather than to
> > > delineate with reason what the content of that stupid fucking book of
> > > trash means?
> >
> > > Point of reference google 16 crucified saviors and you will see that
> > > there are over 44,000 separate websites dedicated to the subject.
> >
> > This is where the book *The Two Babylons* is so good.
>
> Observer
> Why does it discuss the fact that the story of the new testament was
> just plagiarized from previous superstitious filth and was never
> actually a story which reflected any actualities related to the
> mythical Jesus? Thea you are so fucking dimwitted that I am afraid
> that Alzheimer's if eminent.
>
> Yes, I know it was
> > written by a pastor, but he presents all that you are telling me here.
> > There will always be *false gods*, and one *true God*, which is the God
> of
> > Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is the God that made the earth in the first
> > place and *hung the world in space*.
>
> Your poor demented preacher man is not only a purveyor of
> superstitious filth but a hole in the fabric of human dignity ,
> honesty, and our interrelated responsibilities to each other. This
> hideously stupid man can apparently not make an honest living
> providing usefully goods or services so he chose to fleece his friends
> and neighbors by the use of incredible deception. The mentally
> defenseless , such as you, are unable to avoid the hideous thrust of
> his dishonesty.
>
> How terrible it is that such scumb as this and all of the other liars
> for Jesus and their own pocket books can not be made to pay for the
> damage they do to what would have otherwise been decent human breings.
>
> You , poor Thea , are not intellectually astute enough to have any
> concept of the actualities of this world and have been mind fucked
> into a stupor from which you will never escape . It is not to you that
> I write but to those who read here so that they may avoid being
> deceived into a life of drone like servitude to the mindless concepts
> of Christian superstitious filth.
>
> Psychonomist
>

You are always so interesting to read Psycho - EGO EGO EGO!!!

>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I am sorry I didn't tell you where it said this --
> > > > go look it up for yourself.
> > > > In saying there is *no good in us*, it is because God said He had to
> send
> > > > Jesus in order to make us whole.
> >
> > > Observer
> > > Please show us that quote directly from god.
> >
> > > You imbeciles can not even offer scientifically substantive data for
> > > the existence of a god and you expect us to believe that you who know
> > > what it would have said if it existed.
> >
> > Luke 18:19
> > Jesus is talking with the rich young ruler and he says:
> > *Why callest thou me good? None is good, [except] one, that is, God!!!*
> >
> > Psalms 86:5 - *For thou, Lord, are good, and ready to forgive, and
> plenteous
> > in mercy unto all those who call upon thee.*
> >
> > I'll take God up on this and call on Him, and let Jesus *direct my
> paths*.
> > It is more *joyous to dwell in the court yard of the house of God, than
> in
> > hell.*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > To give us life. To get us to heaven by
> > > > covering *our sins* with His Blood, so that God could not see our
> > > > degradation and poverty of spirit.
> >
> > > Observer
> > > A total lie fabricated by a bunch of uneducated pathological liars who
> > > knew next to nothing of the world in which they lived. Such filth is
> > > the produce of plagiarism,hatred of their fellow men, and fear of the
> > > unknown.
> >
> > > Village idiots, those who are devoid of useful educations, psychotics
> > > and those made gullible because of other pathological
> > > considerations , believe such filth . It has become obvious that you
> > > are a composite of all three.
> >
> > > > It's a neat way for us to only have to accept what Jesus did for us
> when
> > > He
> > > > died in our place.
> >
> > > Observer
> > > If Jesus ever lived at all , and any of that outragesously stupid
> > > story was true he was a small time , rather dimwitted, criminal
> > > executed for crimes against the state.
> >
> > > In fact, I believe that if you add anything, like trying
> > > > to be *good enough*, you are making salvation null and void.
> >
> > > Observer
> > > That from which people need salvation is the hideous fucking filthy
> > > superstition to which norons, like you, are adicted by the production
> > > of endogines opiats. You are no more than a fucking opiat junky
> >
> > > Psychonomist
> >
> > > > > _________________________________________________
> > > > > The spectacle of what is called religion, or at any rate organized
> > > > > religion, in India and elsewhere, has filled us with horror, and I
> > > > > have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of
> it.
> > > > > -- Jawaharlal Nehru- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Read the Official Vatican Policy on Covering Up Kiddie Rape
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/bf60dbae19b165b3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:38 pm
From: Brock

On Nov 30, 12:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> "The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up
> cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.

And who says yellow journalism[1] is dead?

I much prefer the analyses:

"He (spokesman for the Catholic church) said: 'This document is about
the Church's internal disciplinary procedures should a priest be
accused of using confession to solicit sex. It does not forbid victims
to report civil crimes. The confidentiality talked about is aimed to
protect the accused as applies in court procedures today. It also
takes into consideration the special nature of the secrecy involved in
the act of confession.'"

and:

"It is certainly an indication of the pathological obsession with
secrecy in the Catholic Church, but in itself it is not a smoking
gun."

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:41 pm
From: Woodbridge

Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #2, 4, 5:

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

On Dec 1, 6:38 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 12:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > "The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up
> > cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
>
> And who says yellow journalism[1] is dead?
>
> I much prefer the analyses:
>
> "He (spokesman for the Catholic church) said: 'This document is about
> the Church's internal disciplinary procedures should a priest be
> accused of using confession to solicit sex. It does not forbid victims
> to report civil crimes. The confidentiality talked about is aimed to
> protect the accused as applies in court procedures today. It also
> takes into consideration the special nature of the secrecy involved in
> the act of confession.'"
>
> and:
>
> "It is certainly an indication of the pathological obsession with
> secrecy in the Catholic Church, but in itself it is not a smoking
> gun."
>

Borgan tolerating Christian priests raping little children

> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Oh, The Humanity!
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/8d76e9ba69ccc141?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:41 pm
From: Brock

On Nov 30, 4:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 'Hundreds dead after Atheist and Agnostic gangs clash in Nigeria '
>
> You can see where that story leads…
>
> The question: Is that headline making a fair point?

Its an insightful point.

Regards,

Brock

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:42 pm
From: Woodbridge

Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #2, 4:

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

On Dec 1, 6:41 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 4:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > 'Hundreds dead after Atheist and Agnostic gangs clash in Nigeria '
>
> > You can see where that story leads…
>
> > The question: Is that headline making a fair point?
>
> Its an insightful point.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A Gentle inquisition please tell us why ?
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/2b0c60cf9303d074?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:48 pm
From: Brock

On Dec 1, 5:43 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why are you here supporting Christianity or positing an atheistic
> stance?

Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae

> If you are a Christian why do you believe that the bible is true?.

I like how the Confession puts it:

"yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the
infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work
of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our
hearts."

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html

> If you are a Christian do you evangelize? If so why?

It is my joy as a believer to have a very small small part in God's
redemptive plan.

> What value do you personally receive from posting here?

Obedience to the wishes of my beloved Lord Jesus Christ.

Regards,

Brock

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:49 pm
From: Woodbridge

Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #2:

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

On Dec 1, 6:48 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 5:43 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why are you here supporting Christianity or positing an atheistic
> > stance?
>
> Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae
>
> > If you are a Christian why do you believe that the bible is true?.
>
> I like how the Confession puts it:
>
> "yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the
> infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work
> of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our
> hearts."
>
> http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html
>
> > If you are a Christian do you evangelize? If so why?
>
> It is my joy as a believer to have a very small small part in God's
> redemptive plan.
>
> > What value do you personally receive from posting here?
>
> Obedience to the wishes of my beloved Lord Jesus Christ.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:50 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:04 PM, leebert <sregdoreel@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 1, 6:22 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You and Leebert are hysterical (Sorry I really couldn't these posts
> > seriously).
>
> I was laughing my way through my response....
>
> Do you feel the love ?
>
> > We need a comedy thread.
> >
> > I nominate the two of you to start one :-)
>
> If he'll be my Gracie, I'll be his George.

Okay MV. Are ya up to the challenge? :-)

>
>
> /leebert
>
>
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: An open letter to Brock
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/2e978a57d8257401?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:50 pm
From: Answer_42

On 1 déc, 15:57, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Essence precedes existence.

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.
__________________________________________
Whenever morality is based on theology, whenever right is made
dependent on divine authority, the most immoral, unjust, infamous
things can be justified and established.
-- Ludwig Feuerbach

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The good life
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/2fdf103aa3f1dd09?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:51 pm
From: Answer_42

On 1 déc, 15:59, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true

> Or rather, I simply note that the objective nature of truth is
> independent of humanistic verification.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:52 pm
From: Brock

On Dec 1, 2:17 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Its clearly an insightful commentary on the limitations of the "new
atheism".

> Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you

I kinda think they are worth it. :)

Regards,

Brock

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:53 pm
From: Woodbridge

Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #4:

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

On Dec 1, 6:52 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2:17 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Its clearly an insightful commentary on the limitations of the "new
> atheism".
>
> > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
>
> I kinda think they are worth it. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:52 pm
From: "Trance Gemini"

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbridge@archaeologist.com>wrote:

>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/d135e587982d8741?hl=en
>
> See Borgan hiding and tolerating I AM TRU CHRISTIAN poster
>

Yes. I saw. Shameless how theists always pick on the atheists but never
comment on the theist bad behavior :-(

>
> On Dec 1, 5:30 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Borgan is BIG hypocrite http://tinyurl.com/Borgan
> >
> > I can't access tinyurl. Can you give me the full url?
> >
> > > <http://tinyurl.com/Borgan>
> > > Many Christians are hypocrites
> >
> > Yes they are.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 1, 3:14 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Nov 26, 6:42 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > > Just thought I'd give an opportunity for the posters, and I'm
> > > > > > particularly targeting the nontheists although as always everyone
> is
> > > > > > of course free to comment, to talk about how AvC may
> have--probably
> > > > > > only slightly--transformed perspectives towards the nature of
> > > > > > religiosity versus rationality. Who or what changed your
> perspective?
> >
> > > > > I have enjoyed participating in the forum. Because of the feedback
> > > > > from participants, I have learned how to articulate many doctrines
> > > > > better and more consistently; in answering particular objections,
> > > > > I've come away with a broader understanding of the history,
> background
> > > > > and nature of how classical philosophical positions compare and
> > > > > contrast with many biblical positions.
> >
> > > > > The invective and vitriol have not been welcome, but I frankly,
> > > > > consider it as close to a concession as I'm likely to receive on
> the
> > > > > group. I've been reminded by atheist examples that there are a
> myriad
> > > > > ways to reject a truth one does not wish to receive. Though it
> would
> > > > > be an overstatement to imply universality, in my opinion much of
> what
> > > > > passes for the "new atheism" is not much more than a wilful
> rejection
> > > > > of the gospel message, articulated so well by Thomas Nagel:
> >
> > > > > "It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope
> that
> > > > > I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't
> want
> > > > > there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."
> >
> > > > Nagel was considered a dualist and wrong on other things as well.
> >
> > > > > Regards,
> >
> > > > > Brock
> >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> >
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Historical Peter Parker
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/dfb77186035b2555?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:55 pm
From: Brock

On Dec 1, 6:50 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> As an atheist, I believe in the historical Peter Parker. There's
> overwhelming evidence that he existed. His swinging from webs though
> is for Christians.
> Are there any Christians here who does not believe that the man Peter
> Parker existed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Parker

Regards,

Brock

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 6:59 pm
From: Woodbridge

Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #2:

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

On Dec 1, 6:55 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 6:50 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
>
> > As an atheist, I believe in the historical Peter Parker. There's
> > overwhelming evidence that he existed. His swinging from webs though
> > is for Christians.
> > Are there any Christians here who does not believe that the man Peter
> > Parker existed?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Parker
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Historical Jesus
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/t/47dc898e56d000c0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 7:00 pm
From: scenario_dave

I just read a book about Rome from its founding to Constintine I and
the author complained that all of the facts we had about some
individuals were written by their enemies. There are many people and
peoples in the ancient world who are only known by the writings of
their enemies. There is known bias in any writing and it is useful to
have writing from both friends and enemies but that is frequently not
the case in ancient writings. You can get some information from th
NT but you need to take things with a lot of skepicsm. I can believe
that a man named Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount but I find it
difficult to believe that a man brought another man back from the
ded.

On Nov 30, 10:21 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'll happily agree with what your saying, but i'd like to comment that
> the analogy isn't perfect.
>
> Unlike all the stories we have of Jesus, not everything written about
> other historical leaders (who were supposed by some to have magical
> powers, or at the least claimed to have some bit of divinity in them)
> there are many accounts of such leaders' existence written by people
> who clearly believe them to be non-divine, there are plenty of
> accounts of them which demonstrate just how not-divine they actually
> are, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of (as far as I
> know) evidence that they are divine - in accounts which purport these
> leaders to be so. Which is simply not the case when it comes to
> Jesus.
>
> On Nov 30, 10:03 am, scenario_dave <scenario_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I understand your point about historical Jesus. But there are a lot
> > of things in writing about known historical figures that are not
> > considered accurate. Most of the Roman Emperors were considered gods
> > after their deaths and many rulers were considered Gods while they
> > lived. Today, very few people believe their leaders are gods with the
> > possible exception of some far right wing zelots,(and far left wing
> > zelots to be fair).
>
> > When we write a new history book about a Roman Emperor we say that
> > people believed he was a god but we don't say he was a god. A new
> > history book about Jesus the man would attempt to do the same thing.
> > Strictly speaking, most ancient rulers were considered magical.
>
> > On Nov 29, 11:20 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I believe in the historical Jesus.
>
> > > Properly speaking, history are those things recorded in written form.
> > > Other issues aside, because history ONLY describes the magical Jesus;
> > > the "historical Jesus" is the magical Jesus. And while we can imagine
> > > a plausible non-magical Jesus inspiring a cult that would spread
> > > across the world, such a non-magical is not recorded anywhere in
> > > history; it would not be at all accurate to describe such a person as
> > > the "historical Jesus".
>
> > > Perhaps you could call such a person the "plausible conjecture Jesus".
>
> > > On Nov 29, 12:14 pm, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > As an atheist, I believe in the historical Jesus. There's overwhelming
> > > > evidence that he existed. His divinity though is for Christians.
>
> > > > Are there any atheist here who does not believe that the man Jesus
> > > > existed?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 7:04 pm
From: Woodbridge

Christian Tertullian is very cunning like Christian LimaToo.
Also say VERY SIMILAR thing so very possible same person

On Dec 1, 6:06 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tertillian changed own post like Christian LimaToo YES?
>
> Yup. Which is why I believe that Tertullian might be Christian Lima Too.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 4:25 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 1, 3:45 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:36 PM, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > Trance Gemini wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:34 PM, LedZepp <FledZeppe...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 29, 6:50 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:14 PM, LedZepp <
> > FledZeppe...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > As an atheist, I believe in the historical Jesus. There's
> > > > > overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > evidence that he existed. His divinity though is for
> > Christians.
>
> > > > > > > > Still waiting to receive your "overwhelming evidence".
>
> > > > > > > I'm just again logging in again. Somehow, someone banned me too.
>
> > > > > > You weren't banned.
>
> > > > > > Why are you lying?
>
> > > > > > I just checked your membership record and you joined on November 13
> > and
> > > > > have
> > > > > > been a member consistently since then.
>
> > > > > Lying, I could not post for two days. Technical difficulties, maybe.
> > > > > Paranoid? that's another, but I couldn't post.
>
> > > > Well you shouldn't just assume things and then end up make false claims
> > > > based on them.
>
> > > > That's called lying.
>
> > > Opinions are not lying. Theist opinions are not lies.
>
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > for now, I'm deferring to the ones who at least believe in the
> > > > > > > historical Jesus.
>
> > > > > > Either you have "overwhelming" evidence or you don't.
>
> > > > > > If you do then you should present it after making the claim.
>
> > > > > > And frankly, if you do, then every biblical scholar in the world
> > will be
> > > > > on
> > > > > > their knees to you because they haven't got that evidence.
>
> > > > > I think I already mentioned to somebody here that I googled the first
> > > > > century historians or writers and at least found Pontius Pilate,
> > > > > Suetonius and Pliny the Younger who all wrote about Christians.
>
> > > > And this is your "overwhelming" evidence to to support the historiocity
> > of
> > > > Jesus?
>
> > > > You clearly didn't bother actually reading any of them did you?
>
> > > > --
> > > > 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 -- 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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 7:03 pm
From: Dev

On Dec 1, 6:54 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Okay, I think this is a good counterargument to that--admittedly,
> > anticipated. Here's the source:
>
> >http://www.tamilnation.org/ideology/neuman_on_non_violence.htm
>
> > ---
>
> > Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was
> > nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have
> > shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week
> > to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But
> > it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a
> > united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife
> > on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and
> > one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the
> > whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. The antagonism
> > between Muslims and Hindus, so painful to Gandhi, still seems almost
> > set in stone. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count
> > his project as a tragic failure.
>
> The fact that bloodshed occurred and that antagonism existed has nothing to
> do with whether the strategy of non-cooperation worked.

I think you're on to kind of the point, although you don't know it.
Now, the whole ideal of pacifism is that things can be accomplished
without violence. So when things are accomplished _with_ violence, it
is not proof that nonviolence works. The point of the author is that
these nonviolent campaigns _did_ work--just not in the pacifistic,
idealistic constraints of "working", because all the results gained
from the use of force or the threat of force. There were nonviolent
elements that were less influential, evidently, than the forceful
elements. But the forceful elements make lousy T-shirts, essentially.

> It's quite well known by most Indians that the Religious strife that
> occurred during Partition was instigated by the British before they left.

Well, look--the US instigated exacerbated warfare between Sunni and
Shi'ite, and that might just run us off, too.

> The British during their entire time in India played the Divide and Rule
> game in order to maintain control of the very large and diverse population.

Of course. But this doesn't have any bearing on the issue: did the
British get their knickers up their bullocks-holes because people were
behavng themselves and playing hacky-sack with Gandhi, or because shit
was going to go down one way or another?

> > What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes,
> > but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's
> > campaign.
>
> Of course not, but these policies of non-cooperation (some of which were led
> by Gandhi) amounted to some very strategic fights which certainly
> contributed to the British leaving simply because they were not able to
> maintain control of a country where non-cooperation was the name of the
> game.

Trance, you are actually kind of agreeing with the author, but
grudgingly. What you are doing is arguing from ambiguity. I am
requesting an argument for nonviolence. You have rephrased this: "non-
cooperation". But violence is, of course, not cooperation. If all the
citizens did was sit there and starve and burn themselves, what were
the British afraid of?

> However, that wasn't the only strategy used by the Indian Freedom Fighters
> and the bombing of trains and other terrorist attacks didn't contribute to
> the British leaving either.

Didn't?

> It contributed to and justified the large scale suppression and massacres
> that occurred by the British against the Indians though.

So what can cause someone to be violent can't be the same thing that
causes them to flee?

So wait--you know more about Indian history than I do, I'm sure. But
what I'm getting from you is "violence made them fight, non-violence
made them flee"? Really? I've been in fights with bigger guys than me,
Trance, and that shit _never_ fucking flies. Being in a fight with the
bigger guy when you have less to lose and you're way, way more pissed
off? That works. Did you ever see the kid who actually _repeated_ "I'm
like rubber, you're like glue" in the playground? Did you ever see him
again? Nonviolence is just a great pretense for force--like an
advertising campaign. The more you put*ahJESUSANDCHRISTIANITYem*

I'm getting a consistent picture from both your account and the
authors: non-violence is a useful motivating tool to make the masses a
considerable threat.

> > The British began contemplating--admittedly with varying
> > degrees of sincerity--some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi
> > did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War
> > I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India
> > was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles
> > from Japan. Later, India's strategic importance, while valued by many,
> > became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the
> > Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War,
> > Britain's will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for
> > reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
>
> Not true. Had India been easy to control like Canada was, the British still
> had a lot to gain by staying.
>
> Because of all the dissension, the economic benefit was too small to justify
> the military and other resources required to suppress and control these
> movements.

Trance, I'm sorry, I love you to death, but you seem to say "not true"
and then basically confirm the author's thesis. You and the author
agree on this: the British abandoned India because it was too hard to
control. The author suggests this was not because of nonviolence. Now,
name a list of things that are violent, and a list of things that are
not violent, and tell me which list of things are _easier to control_.
The author's suggestion is that the _threat_ of "eruption" scared the
British off. Do you dispute this? Don't you think the "non-violence"
contributed to this? Doesn't that bring to mind exactly what the real
purpose of "non-violence" is in a dispute like this?

>
>
> > But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be
> > said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or
> > the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed
> > them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt into a
> > slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it.
>
> Nonsense. The colonial authorities instigated it as I said it was part of
> British Divide and Rule policy which they had used consistently in India
> since their arrival.

But Trance. You aren't disputing his point! He's for the Indians and
against the British. He's just saying that they didn't leave because
they were nice people who shed tears over Gandhi being a nice guy. He
agrees they instigated it. He's just saying they didn't leave because
it was hurting their feelings being such meanies and all. They left
because the threat made it expedient.

> What
>
> > they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims
> > and Hindus, both of whom detected, in the distance, the emergence of a
> > power vacuum they rushed to fill. This violence included the "Great
> > Calcutta Killing" of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in
> > three days.
>
> This has nothing to do with whether the non-cooperation policies were
> successful.
>
> It has everything to do with the fact that the Colonial authorities
> instigated these situations in order to weaken the resistance against their
> rule in India.

Trance, I hope I clarified--he was not defending the fuggin' British.
He was just saying they left for selfish reasons, and those selfish
reasons were contingent on the threat of India exploding into violence
which would have been a handful. And, y'know, the Mumbai incident
which occurred years after he wrote this seems to further confirm his
thesis.

>
>
> > Another factor was the terrorism--and this need not be a term of
> > condemnation--quite regularly employed against the British. It was not
> > enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India
> > was becoming more trouble than it was worth.
>
> And yes this was a factor and he actually contradicts himself here because
> the fact was that the British would have stayed if they had been able to
> easily control the population. Gandhis policies of non-cooperation
> contributed hugely to this.

Now I'm certain you're just reading something into this that isn't
there. He isn't defending the British. If he wanted to make the
British look good, he would probably would have said they left because
Gandhi made their hearts bleed.

> > All things considered,
> > the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on
> > British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and
> > creative political thinker, but he was not a victor.
>
> He contradicts himself again because earlier he correctly states that the
> terrorism at the time was not wide-spread and inconsequential.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. :(

> It was the non-cooperation and the general resistance that was the problem.

Right, and the violent aspect of non-cooperation is what really fucks
with superpowers with no consciences.

> Those who advocated violence in India accomplished nothing.

I don't think you've supported this.

> Non-cooperation forced them out.

Violence isn't cooperation.

> Gandhi was only one player in the movement of the Indian Freedom Fighters
> and the one thing they all united on was non-cooperation.

Violence isn't cooperation. Sorry, I'm not even sure what you think
you've refuted because you seem to have interpreted him as arguing in
favor of Britain and you seem to be conflating non-cooperation with
non-violence.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ---
>
> > I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
> > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material. I
> > predicted that the three examples he anticipated would, in fact, be
> > the only ones that initially emerged--which wasn't exactly a
> > Nostradamus-type prediction, because it does seem we are dealing with
> > modern mythology along the lines of "the Founding Fathers were
> > fundies" and "Hitler was an atheist". Maybe the revelation of the
> > source material will require others to become more creative, maybe the
> > source material itself will encourage some to provide compelling
> > counterarguments.
>
> > In terms of Gandhi, I will also quote Sam Harris:
>
> > ---
>
> > The only way to rule out collateral damage would be to refuse to fight
> > wars under any circumstances. As a foreign policy, this would leave us
> > with something like the absolute pacifism of Gandhi. While pacifism in
> > this form can constitute a direct confrontation with injustice (and
> > requires considerable bravery), it is only applicable to a limited
> > range of human conflicts. Where it is not applicable, it is seems
> > flagrantly immoral. We would do well to reflect on Gandhi's remedy for
> > the Holocaust: he believed that the Jews should have committed mass
> > suicide, because this "would have aroused the world and the people of
> > Germany to Hitler's violence." We might wonder what a world full of
> > pacifists would have done once it had grown "aroused"—commit suicide
> > as well? There seems no question that if all the good people in the
> > world adopted Gandhi's ethics, the thugs would inherit the earth.
>
> > ---
>
> > I realize how it seems like a cheap shot to cut and paste in response.
> > But why not? I read, I throw a little out there for you guys, it seems
> > like a good aid to the thinking process since I actually give a shit
> > and all. I'm not totally convinced about everything, and I want to
> > hear what is being offered in terms of actual, bona fide, human
> > thought when it isn't being retarded. With any luck, you'll find a
> > semblance of a counterargument written by someone else who hasn't read
> > the initial argument, and then we'll both be forced to do our own
> > homework and get to the bottom of this. This is, quite literally,
> > deadly serious. 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.
>
> > Can nonviolence really, truly have been said to have accomplished
> > anything as anything but a happy face on violence or the threat of
> > violence? Even Hitler pretended it was all about "love". Shouldn't the
> > prospect that fighting your enemies is about anything but hate be
> > sinister and dubious by now?
>
> > On Dec 1, 6:00 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ghandi
>
> > > On Dec 1, 7:28 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Let's go!- 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism vs Christianity

Monday, December 1, 2008

Atheism-vs-Christianity - 26 new messages in 15 topics - digest

0 comments:

Blog Archive

Links