Anon jerk wrote:
------------------------------
>"Who else is scared that other people's kids get a wide education which is not dominated by religion?"

-Who else?

The ANTI-RELIGIOUS LEFT, who will cater to the will and beckon of anyone who will vote for them. We call them 'DEMOCRATS' even though there is NOTHING democratic about them.

Oh and I would address the rest of what you wrote, but it appears you can not write a coherant sentence.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
>
> >
> > Talk about a non sequitur. Who said anything
> > about religion? Not I. Religion is only an
> issue
> > because we have government-run schools. Take
> > government out of the equation and the issue of
> > religion is rendered moot. Those of you who
> like
> > the idea of the government indoctrinating our
> > children through "public" schools are
> responsible
> > for the fact that religion in the classroom
> even
> > has to be debated. Fucking morons.
>
> I call BS on that
>
> The vocal majority of people destroy public
> education in the US have always been, and will
> always be religious right wingers
>
> Who else is scared that other people's kids get a
> wide education which is not dominated by
> religion?
>
> By your argument the only reason why we have
> religion in the public classroom is because we
> have public classrooms
>
> If you don't like public education don't use it


So, your issue isn't really with religion in public schools. Your problem is with religion. I don't care about what religion other people do or do not follow. It's none of my business and it's none of yours.

I don't like public education. I also don't use it. But I still have to pay for it, so I have as much right to condemn it as you do to defend it.

You're just a mind-control fascist who, if he could, would deny people their right to follow the religion of their choice. You've made that abundantly clear. You know, atheism is as much a crapshoot as religion, by the way, so get over thinking that you somehow have stumbled upon on objective truth that adherents to religious faith are ignoring. Douchebag.

Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
>
>
> You're just a mind-control fascist who, if he
> could, would deny people their right to follow the
> religion of their choice. You've made that
> abundantly clear. You know, atheism is as much a
> crapshoot as religion, by the way, so get over
> thinking that you somehow have stumbled upon on
> objective truth that adherents to religious faith
> are ignoring. Douchebag.

Sure, I oppose religion - any sane person looking at the evidence has to

As the arguments pages and pages back detail, all religion is based on deeply flawed assumptions

Since the late 19th century science has given us enough practical and provable explanations for the universe works to entirely rule out supernatural explanations and gods

Its as simple as that

Religion is at best mis-understanding, at worst self deception. Organized religion is willful deception

As the pages and pages of discussion above covered, the impact of religion is not neutral.

People should be free to follow their own beliefs in their own homes - but not to indoctrinate the next generation to the detriment of society, and certainly not to expect tax breaks and avoid proper scrutiny

Religion and science are not the same thing - they approach the world from different direction, and they are not compatible. Faith and science are antithetical, and faith is being driven into increasingly darker and darker corners and more and more ridiculous justifications as science progresses

Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
> >
> >
> > You're just a mind-control fascist who, if he
> > could, would deny people their right to follow
> the
> > religion of their choice. You've made that
> > abundantly clear. You know, atheism is as much
> a
> > crapshoot as religion, by the way, so get over
> > thinking that you somehow have stumbled upon on
> > objective truth that adherents to religious
> faith
> > are ignoring. Douchebag.
>
> Sure, I oppose religion - any sane person looking
> at the evidence has to
>
> As the arguments pages and pages back detail, all
> religion is based on deeply flawed assumptions
>
> Since the late 19th century science has given us
> enough practical and provable explanations for the
> universe works to entirely rule out supernatural
> explanations and gods
>
> Its as simple as that
>
> Religion is at best mis-understanding, at worst
> self deception. Organized religion is willful
> deception
>
> As the pages and pages of discussion above
> covered, the impact of religion is not neutral.
>
> People should be free to follow their own beliefs
> in their own homes - but not to indoctrinate the
> next generation to the detriment of society, and
> certainly not to expect tax breaks and avoid
> proper scrutiny
>
> Religion and science are not the same thing - they
> approach the world from different direction, and
> they are not compatible. Faith and science are
> antithetical, and faith is being driven into
> increasingly darker and darker corners and more
> and more ridiculous justifications as science
> progresses

Who said that religion and science are the same thing? You're not very bright, I guess, as you continue to infer things that I am not stating or implying. Or are you equating atheism with science? Science can no more prove the non-existence of a supreme being than religion can prove its existence. If you had your way, you seem to be saying that parents should be legally precluded from rearing their children in any kind of religious faith or tradition. Is that correct? If so, how would you have that enforced and what would be the punishment for those who violated the law? Would you throw them in jail? Would you take their children away? If I am not correct about what you are saying, what did you mean when you said that people should not be able to "indoctrinate the next generation to the detriment of society," (which, I should add, is exactly what our public schools have been doing for decades)?

Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

Or are you equating atheism with
> science? Science can no more prove the
> non-existence of a supreme being than religion can
> prove its existence. If you had your way, you

Science doesn't have to prove the non-existence of a supreme being - in the same way that it doesn't have to prove the non-existence of flying pink giraffes or the long lost floating island of Yollaballo

What science does do extremely well is to model in a consistent and predictable way the mechanisms by which the universe, life and our minds work.

I'd argue that religion does have the burden of proof because its assertions run entirely counter to what we now know about how the universe works

It can either go up against science and disprove its assertions - as the established church has often done and always failed - or it can claim dominion over the gaps over which the current state of science at any point does not yet make strong assertions.

To do be credible in either it has to provide evidence - "Supreme Being B planted fossils in a manner wholly congruent with physics, geology and embryology just to test us", "Supreme Being B started the photons from stars Billions of light years away 6,000 years ago just to make bamboozle astronomers" doesn't cut it

The problem for religion is there are less and less gaps in which to hide Supreme Beings 1..n (my belief is actually that are now none)

My personal view, is that even the current state of science gives a good enough account of the phenomena we see about us (over vast ranges of time, physical scale and complexity)- to discount the existence of supreme being(s)

Just shouting 'yah boo sucks' and name calling doesn't make any of the highly congruent evidence to support this proposition go away

If you don't like it, its simple - either come up with some evidence, or come up with a testable gap that is best explained by a Supreme Being - how hard can that be? You can even chose your own set of Supreme Beings - but expect their proposed Supreme Being special powers to be held up to scrutiny

Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Or are you equating atheism with
> > science? Science can no more prove the
> > non-existence of a supreme being than religion
> can
> > prove its existence. If you had your way, you
>
> Science doesn't have to prove the non-existence of
> a supreme being - in the same way that it doesn't
> have to prove the non-existence of flying pink
> giraffes or the long lost floating island of
> Yollaballo
>
> What science does do extremely well is to model in
> a consistent and predictable way the mechanisms by
> which the universe, life and our minds work.
>
> I'd argue that religion does have the burden of
> proof because its assertions run entirely counter
> to what we now know about how the universe works
>
> It can either go up against science and disprove
> its assertions - as the established church has
> often done and always failed - or it can claim
> dominion over the gaps over which the current
> state of science at any point does not yet make
> strong assertions.
>
> To do be credible in either it has to provide
> evidence - "Supreme Being B planted fossils in a
> manner wholly congruent with physics, geology and
> embryology just to test us", "Supreme Being B
> started the photons from stars Billions of light
> years away 6,000 years ago just to make bamboozle
> astronomers" doesn't cut it
>
> The problem for religion is there are less and
> less gaps in which to hide Supreme Beings 1..n
> (my belief is actually that are now none)
>
> My personal view, is that even the current state
> of science gives a good enough account of the
> phenomena we see about us (over vast ranges of
> time, physical scale and complexity)- to discount
> the existence of supreme being(s)
>
> Just shouting 'yah boo sucks' and name calling
> doesn't make any of the highly congruent evidence
> to support this proposition go away
>
> If you don't like it, its simple - either come up
> with some evidence, or come up with a testable gap
> that is best explained by a Supreme Being - how
> hard can that be? You can even chose your own set
> of Supreme Beings - but expect their proposed
> Supreme Being special powers to be held up to
> scrutiny



You seem to be mistaking me for someone who is trying to prove the existence of God or the rationality of religion. My point is that disagreements over religion in the schools would go away tomorrow if we got rid of our public schools. They are incredibly inefficient, do a lousy job of educating our children (particularly in light of the amount of money that is wasted on them), and, because they are government run, are hostage to political disagreements such as the proper role, if any, of religion.

Mr Nothing wrote:
------------------------------
>"Since the late 19th century science has given us enough practical
and provable explanations for the universe works to entirely rule out supernatural explanations and gods"

BS!
Science has given us NOTHING to explain how the universe works!
If it has, please give me a detailed explanation as to HOW MAGNETS
work, or HOW GRAVITY works, dumbass.


'Mr Nothing wrote:
------------------------------
>"Science doesn't have to prove the non-existence of a
supreme being - in the same way that it doesn't have to prove
the non-existence of flying pink giraffes or the long lost
floating island of Yollaballo"

BS!
Science is the systematic process of PROVING hypothesis
through REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS!

Boy, talk about, talking out of your ASS!


Mr Nothing wrote:
------------------------------
>"I'd argue that religion does have the burden of proof because
its assertions run entirely counter to what we now know about
how the universe works"

BS!
Science BY DEFINITION has the burden of PROOF on IT'S shoulders.
YOU as a 'SCIENTIST' are the one FALLING SHORT of EXPECTATIONS BOZO!
Religious people don't need a complete comprehension of the
cosmos to see that it was CREATED!



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> You seem to be mistaking me for someone who is
> trying to prove the existence of God or the
> rationality of religion. My point is that
> disagreements over religion in the schools would
> go away tomorrow if we got rid of our public
> schools. They are incredibly inefficient, do a
> lousy job of educating our children (particularly
> in light of the amount of money that is wasted on
> them), and, because they are government run, are
> hostage to political disagreements such as the
> proper role, if any, of religion.

The problem is that no-one has demonstrated a better model that works at national scale - even with far smaller countries.

In fact, all of our economic rivals have strong public schools (often stronger than ours)

Primary failure modes:
1) the rich get a good education - the poor get nothing or next to nothing
2) they get run by religions who have other objectives e.g. Eire

Its hard to believe that we would have affordable college education accessible to many if we didn't have state colleges such as UVA, Tech, Berkeley etc - the private sector never demonstrated the desire or ability to scale. So why should we think a private-only system would work for K-12?

I don't believe that home schooling is an option for the majority of families - especially at high school level

Churches are certainly not the way to go for mass education

Charities have a spotty record and mixed capabilities/objectives

None of the alternatives seem like a good national bet - so you're left with improve what you've got

I'd argue that we just don't waste that much money on schools - especially compared to the alternative

Now, can we do a better job - for sure. But its not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater

I just found out my coworker at my new job belongs to this church and will say really inappropriate things about others, ironically while she is drunk. I hope I don't have to deal with this.

Well if he's a clown, he's "MY CLOWN"

Wow why the foul language, you know if you chose not to believe we can't make you, but when you find your on the wrong end of the stick it'ss gonna be too late.

Satan is alive and well cause man some of his kids that are on this blog are fighting to the death, to say there is no God.

How said to know the truth in your heart and to be a fool and on your way to hell.

GODONHIGH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Satan is alive and well cause man some of his kids
> that are on this blog are fighting to the death,
> to say there is no God.
>
> How sad to know the truth in your heart and to be
> a fool and on your way to hell.

GODONHIGH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Satan is alive and well cause man some of his kids
> that are on this blog are fighting to the death,
> to say there is no God.
>
> How said to know the truth in your heart and to be
> a fool and on your way to hell.


And you wonder why thinking people have nothing but contempt for religious dogma and its pushers?

Okay - so you haven't been able to demonstrate the do-good supreme being, lets see you demonstrate the do-bad supreme being - I guess that'll be easier as it would have less reason to be shy

one bit of evidence - just one...thought not

No god, no gods, no satan, no demons/devils/sucubus/incubus/vampires, no souls to lose, no hell - just old stories to scare children and old people

Mr. Know-nothing,

Your mother scares children and old people,
so is she a sect of religion aslo?

I can prove the Do-Stupid Supreme Being, YOU.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-nothing,
>
> Your mother scares children and old people,
> so is she a sect of religion aslo?
>
> I can prove the Do-Stupid Supreme Being, YOU.
>
>
> .


You Lose.

Jesus fought religion! and it killed him. If you cant stand religion then you are more like God then you know. We are comanded to love God and people, not religion. We are the church. We are in a hell. The Bible clearly states that Satan is the god of this age. Thas why we enjoy evil things.

If you are miserable here than you are more like Jesus and the prophets than you know. Dont look to a church to get what you need, find three different types of Bibles' and start reading/comparing and you will get what you need, thats a promis.

Life is long, its the past thats short.

acts411 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesus fought religion!
Not really. Jesus fought false religion. Saying that religion is a bad thing in and of itself is foolish and unbliblical.

> We are comanded to love God and
> people, not religion.
Naturally. But the manner in which we love God and people is called, in English, religion.

> Dont look to
> a church to get what you need, find three
> different types of Bibles' and start
> reading/comparing and you will get what you need,
> thats a promis.

The problem is that without a Church, you would have no bible. So you're sort of dependent on a Church. Especially since Jesus founded a Church, but he did not commission the writing of Scriptures.

Your giving man a lot of credit here.

---Not really. Jesus fought false religion. Saying that religion is a bad thing in and of itself is foolish and unbliblical.

Judaism was more of THE religion. And up to Jesus' crusade was the old covenant with God. The way to Heavan. The religion.

----Naturally. But the manner in which we love God and people is called, in English, religion.

James 1:27, "Pure and udefiled religion before God and the Father is this:to visit orphans and widows in their trouble and to keep oneself unspotted from the world". That is the biblical definition of religion, I'm not at all concerned with any of mans translations of the word religion. I think love is a manner in which we treat God and people.

----The problem is that without a Church, you would have no bible. So you're sort of dependent on a Church. Especially since Jesus founded a Church, but he did not commission the writing of Scriptures.

I think more, without God we would have no Bible. If the church didnt continue the Bible He would have made sure it happened, like the "world" leaders and professional scribes He used.....I just dont think a church is the best place to start if your looking for God. I think the Bible is the best start, then you can go to a church with your questions. Most churces are just a division of believers and not a hospital for sinners like they should be.

You have false thoughts. Your whole post is wrong because we do not hate gays, nor evolution. We do not say everyone but us is going to hell. and its more than 5million+ people. We are not a society nor a organization. We are Christ. We are the Church. So please get your facts straight instead of borrowing your friends laptop. taking it to your local redneck monster truck rally. and posting up hate.

In the old days, everyone went to hell for up to 12 months to purify the soul. The notion of hell as eternal punishment came much later in the medieval times. They added to the scriptures and embellished the stories and concepts.

ChristiansFTW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are Christ.
Let's be careful friend. Christ is the son of God, he is different from us. While he invites us and makes it possible for us to participate in Divine Sonship, we are not he, nor he us.

> So please get your facts straight instead
> of borrowing your friends laptop. taking it to
> your local redneck monster truck rally. and
> posting up hate.
You're not doing your side, whatever it is, any favors with this sort of language. If you want people to respect what you say, don't insult them.

Les Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the old days, everyone went to hell for up to
> 12 months to purify the soul. The notion of hell
> as eternal punishment came much later in the
> medieval times. They added to the scriptures and
> embellished the stories and concepts.

Hm. Interesting. Many first and second century sources reference hell. See below. No, my friend, eternal punishment is not an "invention" of the medieval period, but has been taught by the Church, in Scripture, and by Christ himself since the beginning.

Ignatius of Antioch

Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire, and so will anyone who listens to him (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1-2 [A.D. 110]).

Second Clement

If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).

Justin Martyr

No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments (First Apology 12 [A.D. 151]).

[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons (ibid. 52).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire (Martyrdom of Polycarp 2:3 [A.D. 155]).

Theophilus of Antioch

Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God.... [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortally by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . , For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181]).

Irenaeus


The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . It is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire," they will be damned forever (Against Heresies 4:28:2 [A.D. 189]).

Religion is man made.
Science is man made.
Both are full of rules written by man.

God is not man made.
Believing in God is NOT religion or science.
It is faith.

God does not need man.
Man needs God.

Arguing any of the above is futile.
It doesn't change God.
He will go on with or without you.
As for me and my house, we will serve The Lord.

God Bless you all.

Good news everyone! There is no God so you don't have to waste your Sundays praying to a deity that made the entire fucking universe in seven days!

faithfull Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Religion is man made.
See, you start out with an error already. The Bible itself speaks of religion. Religion means beliefs related to our relationship with God. So as long as you're speaking English...any belief in God, any faith, is religion.

Don't be afraid of the word. Just work to show others that God is worth believing in.

> Believing in God is NOT religion...
As long as you're speaking English...yes it is.

>
> Arguing any of the above is futile.
> It doesn't change God.
> He will go on with or without you.
> As for me and my house, we will serve The Lord.
>

That's right, keep on serving me bitch! I'll probably go on without you in heaven too, but that's another story.

In the mean time, fill up on faith unlike you did with spelling lessons. Heaven has no vacancies for the weak. Here is a tool that I, god, created to help you:
http://orangoo.com/spellcheck/

Faithful has only one l at the end.

Hell is shared across all pagan religions and mythologies. The actual Hell was in Gehenna, a valley on the outskirts of Jerusalem, where the Romans took the bodies of corpses of criminals to be burned. The story of Jesus's descent into hell and subsequent rise is a metaphor for the process of being cremated and the soul ascending to the thereafter. The stories of that time were embellished by zealots.

A messiah is supposed to be a military leader who would free the Jews from Roman rule. When a Jewish rebellion failed to materialize as Jesus predicted, the whole concept was spiritualized rather than accept that he had failed.

Atheism = FAGGOT

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Clapton is God.

Atheism Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hell is shared across all pagan religions and
> mythologies.

Actually I'm not sure this is true. It was a popular Helenized idea, but unless you are rather liberal with your 'hell', this doesn't seem to be true.

Egyptian mythology, for instance, had a judgment, where you either were destroyed or the bad part of you was destroyed and then you would find your way to the afterlife.

> The actual Hell was in Gehenna, a
> valley on the outskirts of Jerusalem, where the
> Romans took the bodies of corpses of criminals to
> be burned. The story of Jesus's descent into hell
> and subsequent rise is a metaphor for the process
> of being cremated and the soul ascending to the
> thereafter. The stories of that time were
> embellished by zealots.

I thought the descent into hell was from the apocrapha, not the actual 'legitimate' bible.

> A messiah is supposed to be a military leader who
> would free the Jews from Roman rule. When a
> Jewish rebellion failed to materialize as Jesus
> predicted, the whole concept was spiritualized
> rather than accept that he had failed.


Basically, yes.

Actually NO.

***Nowhere does the definition mention
ANYTHING about a MILITARY leader.***

ASSWIPES.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/messiah :

Main Entry: MES-SI-AH
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈsī-ə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Hebrew mÄshÄ«aḥ & Aramaic mÄ•shīḥÄ,
literally, anointed
Date: 1560

1 CAPITALIZED a : the expected king and deliverer of the Jews
b : jesus 1

2 : a professed or accepted leader of some HOPE or CAUSE.

So STFU !

.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

"Hammer away, ye Heathen Hands!
Your Hammers break,
God's Anvil stands!"

Does not anyone see the Cosmic Joke - the Divine Comedy, as it were?
Humans are a creation of God. He created them as replicas of Himself. He placed but one limitation on them: they must not eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Eventually they would have eaten of the Tree of Eternal Life.

This enraged Satan, who basically wanted our job. So he smooth-talked the first humans into disobeying God. But God knew this would happen, so he had a plan.

See, just as you can only die once for one crime, leaving the others to be paid for; so one totally perfect and pure can die for every crime ever commited. God became human and took our sins upon Himself, and died for us. Now for the best prt of the Joke!

When, at Jesus's trial the Jews shouted "May His blood be upon us and our Children!" Satan thought he had finally tricked God into condemning His Chosen. But Christians know that the Blood of the Christ is a covering for sin. So the Lost Sheep of Israel were the first people to claim the benefit of Salvation, albeit they did not know it. And so Satan, in trying to destroy God's Creation, in fact thwarted his own self. That is the Divine Comedy.

Those folks on this forum who try to deny the existence of God say there is no "scientific proof". There is no scientific proof because human science does not have adequate means to measure that which is present in every last cubic inch of the universe and which dwells in all time, past present and future; which inhabits every dimension the human mind can concieve (and even more).

I have never met an Atheist who raged against Hinduism or Bhuddism or Islam. The world over, atheists rage against Christianity. And in their heart of hearts, they know they are actively denying the Truth. You may not believe in God now.

BUT YOU WILL. I hope sincerely that you do not come to the corect conclusion too late.

F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Does not anyone see the Cosmic Joke - the Divine
> Comedy, as it were?

Yes, but it hurts too much to laugh.


> Humans are a creation of God. He created them as
> replicas of Himself. He placed but one limitation
> on them: they must not eat of the tree of the
> knowledge of Good and Evil.

In other words, he wanted us to be stupid. Easier to maintain that way.


> Eventually they would
> have eaten of the Tree of Eternal Life.

And been stupid for ever and ever. Great!



> This enraged Satan, who basically wanted our job.
> So he smooth-talked the first humans into
> disobeying God. But God knew this would happen, so
> he had a plan.
>
> See, just as you can only die once for one crime,
> leaving the others to be paid for; so one totally
> perfect and pure can die for every crime ever
> commited. God became human and took our sins upon
> Himself, and died for us. Now for the best prt of
> the Joke!

> When, at Jesus's trial the Jews shouted "May His
> blood be upon us and our Children!" Satan thought
> he had finally tricked God into condemning His
> Chosen. But Christians know that the Blood of the
> Christ is a covering for sin. So the Lost Sheep of
> Israel were the first people to claim the benefit
> of Salvation, albeit they did not know it. And so
> Satan, in trying to destroy God's Creation, in
> fact thwarted his own self. That is the Divine
> Comedy.

Not funny at all. Too complicated and self-indulgent. Why didn't God just do away with Satan and save everyone all the headaches?


> Those folks on this forum who try to deny the
> existence of God say there is no "scientific
> proof". There is no scientific proof because
> human science does not have adequate means to
> measure that which is present in every last cubic
> inch of the universe and which dwells in all time,
> past present and future; which inhabits every
> dimension the human mind can concieve (and even
> more).

Then why should anyone believe it? Because a book of short stories that was written in the bronze age says so?


> I have never met an Atheist who raged against
> Hinduism or Bhuddism or Islam.

I take it you don't know many atheists? All the ones I know provide equal admonishment to all religions. BTW, many people (including myself) don't view Buddism as a religion because there is no God involved. Buddism seeks to end suffering where most of the others (including Christianity) seek to condone it.

> The world over,
> atheists rage against Christianity. And in their
> heart of hearts, they know they are actively
> denying the Truth. You may not believe in God
> now.
>
> BUT YOU WILL. I hope sincerely that you do not
> come to the corect conclusion too late.


When is too late? On our deathbeds? Not gonna happen. If someone spends their adult life not believing in religion, what makes you think we'll suddenly have a change of thought?

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In other words, he wanted us to be stupid. Easier
> to maintain that way.

No. He wanted us to not commit evil. "knowledge" of evil would require us to do evil, which is, by definition, bad.

> Not funny at all. Too complicated and
> self-indulgent. Why didn't God just do away with
> Satan and save everyone all the headaches?

A universe without choice is a universe without love. God doesn't want slaves.

> Then why should anyone believe it? Because a book
> of short stories that was written in the bronze
> age says so?

It's a matter of faith; you can choose to believe or not to. the evidence is that miracles which occured thousands of years ago are attested to by multiple witnesses. The choice is yours, and like me and everyone else, we all are accountable for that choice and its consequences. Miracles continue to occur, if you're interested in looking for them. Religious miracles still occur, but most nonbelievers do not investigate them.

http://ministryvalues.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1237&Itemid=127

Quote

Scalia cited the 10-year-old case of a priest in the Washington archdiocese who was said to have the stigmata. Statues of Mary and the saints appeared to weep in his presence. Reporters for The Washington Post did a story and were unable to find an explanation for the strange phenomena.

“Why wasn’t that church absolutely packed with nonbelievers,†Scalia asked, “seeking to determine if there might be something to this?â€

> When is too late? On our deathbeds? Not gonna
> happen. If someone spends their adult life not
> believing in religion, what makes you think we'll
> suddenly have a change of thought?

Happens all the time. Like a persistent suitor, God never gives up in pursuing his beloved.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2010 11:47AM by Kardinal.

F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have never met an Atheist who raged against
> Hinduism or Bhuddism or Islam. The world over,
> atheists rage against Christianity. And in their
> heart of hearts, they know they are actively
> denying the Truth.

I'm sorry, but this just indicates that you aren't very well read. The modern crop of 'new atheists' all seem to bash Islam. Look at Harris and Hitchens. There is even a prominent female atheist who wrote a book detailing her escape from Islam.

> You may not believe in God
> now.
>
> BUT YOU WILL. I hope sincerely that you do not
> come to the corect conclusion too late.

This is wishful thinking.

Atheists are very skeptical of the mystical and spiritual claims in Buddhism, just as they are with every other religion that claims to map out what happens outside of the real world.

Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No. He wanted us to not commit evil. "knowledge"
> of evil would require us to do evil, which is, by
> definition, bad.

What a ridiculous statement. Didn't God create evil to start with? Why dangle a carrot if not some sort of sick game or experiment?


> A universe without choice is a universe without
> love. God doesn't want slaves.

What is the choice? Obey God or spend eternity burning in hell? Not much of a choice there, is it?


> It's a matter of faith; you can choose to believe
> or not to. the evidence is that miracles which
> occured thousands of years ago are attested to by
> multiple witnesses. The choice is yours, and like
> me and everyone else, we all are accountable for
> that choice and its consequences. Miracles
> continue to occur, if you're interested in looking
> for them. Religious miracles still occur, but
> most nonbelievers do not investigate them.

It seems to me like what those people who "witnessed miracles" saw is just something they didn't understand. The same goes for any "miracle" today. Just because you don't have the wherewithal to understand basic physics and science of certian events, doesn't mean its a miracle. I'm sure any miracle you can point to can be explained by people that can actually recreate them.


> Scalia cited the 10-year-old case of a priest in
> the Washington archdiocese who was said to have
> the stigmata. Statues of Mary and the saints
> appeared to weep in his presence. Reporters for
> The Washington Post did a story and were unable to
> find an explanation for the strange phenomena.

Wait a second. You expected reporters from the Washington Post to explain this? Those reporters should have asked credible scientists for an explanation, but even that wasn't necessary as this "statue crying" thing has been debunked a thousand times.

"What is needed is a hollow statue made of a porous material such as plaster or ceramic. The icon must be glazed or painted with some sort of impermeable coating. If the statue is then filled up with a liquid (surreptitiously, through a tiny hole in the head, for example), the porous material will absorb it, but the glazing will stop it from flowing out. If the glazing, however, is imperceptibly scratched away on or around the eyes, tear-like drops will leak out, as if materialising from thin air. If the cavity behind the eyes is small enough, once all the liquid has dripped out there are virtually no traces left in the icon. When I put it to the test, this trick proved to be very satisfactory, baffling all onlookers."



> “Why wasn’t that church absolutely packed with
> nonbelievers,†Scalia asked, “seeking to
> determine if there might be something to this?â€

Because we know its a hoax and why they do it and how they do it.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a ridiculous statement. Didn't God create
> evil to start with? Why dangle a carrot if not
> some sort of sick game or experiment?

No. Evil is the absence of good. Thus it is not created.

> > A universe without choice is a universe without
> > love. God doesn't want slaves.
>
> What is the choice? Obey God or spend eternity
> burning in hell? Not much of a choice there, is
> it?

No. The choice is to love God or not to. The consequences make the correct answer obvious, but it's still a choice.


> It seems to me like what those people who
> "witnessed miracles" saw is just something they
> didn't understand. The same goes for any "miracle"
> today. Just because you don't have the wherewithal
> to understand basic physics and science of certian
> events, doesn't mean its a miracle. I'm sure any
> miracle you can point to can be explained by
> people that can actually recreate them.

Perhaps. But have you actually investigated such things or are you putting your...faith...in the empirical that it can be replicated? :)

> Wait a second. You expected reporters from the
> Washington Post to explain this? Those reporters
> should have asked credible scientists for an
> explanation, but even that wasn't necessary as
> this "statue crying" thing has been debunked a
> thousand times.

Perhaps. But I don't see atheists coming out of the woodwork to investigate, which would indicate their honest interest in it being "proven" nor did I see anyone ACTUALLY disprove it.

Which tells me they're simply operating on...as much faith as believers. Except their faith is in the belief that there is no metaphysical, that everything is empirical, and there is nothing more than that. For which, of course, there is, and cannot be...proof. :)

Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No. Evil is the absence of good. Thus it is not
> created.

Without everything there would be nothing, right? Didn't God create everything? Are you claiming that evil was something that existed without Gods consent?
Spin away.


> No. The choice is to love God or not to. The
> consequences make the correct answer obvious, but
> it's still a choice.

Sooooo, there is no choice is what you're saying here. That's like paying a mob boss for "protection" or my business might "accidentally" burn down. That's not a choice, it's extortion.


> Perhaps. But have you actually investigated such
> things or are you putting your...faith...in the
> empirical that it can be replicated? :)

I have not personally investigated these events and have no desire to because the explanation given by people that do investigate them makes perfect sense and no further investigation is warranted.


> Perhaps. But I don't see atheists coming out of
> the woodwork to investigate, which would indicate
> their honest interest in it being "proven" nor did
> I see anyone ACTUALLY disprove it.

You obviously didn't look very hard. I just gave you one explanation for why statues cry and you've already ignored it. There was an incident in Woodbridge a few years back at a Catholic church where Mary supposedly cried. It turned out to be just humidity building up on her eye lid and was nothing more. That happens on most statues all summer long, but no one cares unless it happens on a religious statue. The less porous the surface of the statue, the more humidity build up. It's not rocket science.


> Which tells me they're simply operating on...as
> much faith as believers. Except their faith is in
> the belief that there is no metaphysical, that
> everything is empirical, and there is nothing more
> than that. For which, of course, there is, and
> cannot be...proof. :)

Testing, re-testing, comparing evidence with scientific peers that constantly try to disprove theories is NOT faith. It's just the opposite of faith. It's something we can see and touch or at least make sense of. Faith is the absence of this. I don't have faith that the sun warms me and helps create life, I know it and can prove it.

Why would anyone believe in the metaphysical or spiritual without any reason to? Do you also believe in the underwater civilization of Atlantis? If not, why?

Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. Evil is the absence of good. Thus it is not
> created.

You know, this is one of the more uncritically accepted ramblings that I've read in email forwards. It makes no sense.

So evil is just the absence of good? What does that even mean?

Evil pertains to actions, and deliberate actions at that. The actions of the Nazi's during WWII, putting people to death, was a deliberate action. It was not simply the absence of good.

> Perhaps. But I don't see atheists coming out of
> the woodwork to investigate, which would indicate
> their honest interest in it being "proven" nor did
> I see anyone ACTUALLY disprove it.

Check out the Skeptical Inquirer or other skeptical magazines. Granted they aren't the province of atheists (well, *only* atheists), but they do debunk such things.

> Which tells me they're simply operating on...as
> much faith as believers.

What it should tell you is that you aren't very well read.

> Except their faith is in
> the belief that there is no metaphysical, that
> everything is empirical, and there is nothing more
> than that. For which, of course, there is, and
> cannot be...proof.

This should also tell you that you aren't very well read, since you are creating a strawman out of what atheist's believe. You are conflating a specific metaphysical view (materialism) with all atheists. Which, of course, is a mistake.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Without everything there would be nothing, right?
> Didn't God create everything? Are you claiming
> that evil was something that existed without Gods
> consent?
> Spin away.

Obviously the position is absurd since if you accept an omnimax God, then you accept that such an entity is ultimately responsible for everything. After all, this is all 'his plan', correct?

I agree with you, obviously, it's simply apologetic spin.

Here is a question the LORD wants me to pose to all you so-called "atheists".

It is now possible to clone human beings. This opens the possibility - nay, the inevitability that it will soom be (or already is) possible for a human to create a genetically identical replica of himself to be used as an "organ reservoir". Keep them in stockades, and if you need a kidney, just harvest it. Need a new heart or liver? Just harvest and make a new clone. Sell spare parts from dead clones to folks who cannot afford to clone themselves. Etcetera.

Is this good, evil, or morally neutral?

Now if you believe this is good or "morally neutral", then you are a ghoul.

But if you believe it evil, well, says who? YOU? "Commom consensus"? After all, "IT" is "just" a "man-made" copy of you.

AGet back to me at tis space. I shall be watching.

I already have a clone. She is my identical twin. I don't consider her an "IT" for my biological purposes.

What you don't understand is that the clone will have a mind and will of its own. Unless you can clone someone without a brain, I don't think there will be a problem. You still have to sign your driver's license in order to donate your organs---they can't just take them out of your body. Our government would have to change drastically in order for this to be a possibility. Not gonna happen without a HUGE fight. The clones will rebel.

Maybe God intended for scientists to discover cloning and the ability to create "spare parts"? Maybe he created stem cells so that humans could heal their worst ailments? Or does your pastor tell you that could NEVER be the case, so you never question anything? The bottom line is that you do not know for sure. You can only guess.

Maybe those clones could give you a brain and a spine, seeing as though your kind have "tithed" them to guy in the slick suit called a pastor after falling victim to his sales pitch.

I have no problem with faith. I've gained my understanding of Jesus and God. From what I understand, I would bet Jesus would be furious with what most people around here consider a "church" and the way many "believers" use him name to justify acts of discrimination. In the case of the pastors, the way they use his name to afford a very comfortable living.

Of course I also believe that if I live my life as a good honest man, I'd be rewarded by God, regardless of what church I didn't attend. Apparently a lot of these "believers" think I am wrong. God gave us guidelines for living a "good" life. Jesus set an example. Everything else that has become "Christianity" is purely manmade. It is the work of Popes, clergy, pastors, whoever else had a business interest in the "industry" of religion.

va00 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just found out my coworker at my new job belongs
> to this church and will say really inappropriate
> things about others, ironically while she is
> drunk. I hope I don't have to deal with this.


Is she hot?

Out For Myself Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> va00 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I just found out my coworker at my new job
> belongs
> > to this church and will say really
> inappropriate
> > things about others, ironically while she is
> > drunk. I hope I don't have to deal with this.
>
>
> Is she hot?

Yeah those religious types are often not so religious behind closed doors and after a few drinks. Especially since so many "believe" because they think they are supposed to. They don't believe anything, they just go to church for appearances.

Way to sidestep the question.
I know, of course that these clones will have "independent will" which is why I said keep them in stockades. The clones wouldn't HAVE any rights. My question wqs NOT whether you had a twin, either. The question wqs two parts.ONE, would you consider this practice to be right, wrong, or morally neutral.

TWO, what is your authority for calling this or indeed anything "right" or "wrong"?? If our rights are granted by government, then they can be cancelled out by government also. If you say our rights stem from "social consensus" or some such, then basically you are saying "government". and in that case you agree that if the "social consensus" was that atheists be burned at the stake (as indeed was once the case) then you would be cool with that.

Wait. WhAT? You object? Well, of course you do. I object also. (There was nothing Biblical about the practice, which was a perversion of Christianity). But since you are (or claim to be) an atheist, then your argument boils down to our rights being granted by you and everybody who agrees with you.

Now kindly answer parts ONE and TWO, and don't change the subject and attack this time. Do these clones have any rights? And if so, what is your authority for saying they do?

F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is a question the LORD wants me to pose to
> all you so-called "atheists".

You hear voices in your head asking you to post on messageboards?

> It is now possible to clone human beings. This
> opens the possibility - nay, the inevitability
> that it will soom be (or already is) possible for
> a human to create a genetically identical replica
> of himself to be used as an "organ reservoir".
> Keep them in stockades, and if you need a kidney,
> just harvest it. Need a new heart or liver? Just
> harvest and make a new clone. Sell spare parts
> from dead clones to folks who cannot afford to
> clone themselves. Etcetera.

So, basically the plot of "The Island"?

> Is this good, evil, or morally neutral?

Are these people conscious? If so, then I would say that it is wrong.

> Now if you believe this is good or "morally
> neutral", then you are a ghoul.

Ad-homs are simply not persuasive.

> But if you believe it evil, well, says who? YOU?
> "Commom consensus"? After all, "IT" is "just" a
> "man-made" copy of you.

I don't know what you mean by 'evil' - an immaterial entity? A "Boogey man"?

So, no I wouldn't consider it 'evil'. It is a wrong action because it would harm that individual (assuming they have a conscious).

> AGet back to me at tis space. I shall be watching.

You should first go and get your meds adjusted.

F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Way to sidestep the question.
> I know, of course that these clones will have
> "independent will" which is why I said keep them
> in stockades. The clones wouldn't HAVE any
> rights. My question wqs NOT whether you had a
> twin, either. The question wqs two parts.ONE,
> would you consider this practice to be right,
> wrong, or morally neutral.

Why wouldn't they have any rights?

I'm actually a twin as well and both my brother and I have rights.

> TWO, what is your authority for calling this or
> indeed anything "right" or "wrong"?? If our
> rights are granted by government, then they can be
> cancelled out by government also.

My authority comes from the tentative agreement of the society I live in. It is culturally relative, for sure, but it is objective in the sense that we can compare it to other morality schemes and determine which one is superior at the goal of human happiness.

You realize that your objections here (that rights can be cancelled) can be leveled at your God as well and is a red herring, with regard whether or not a morality is subjective or objective.

> If you say our
> rights stem from "social consensus" or some such,
> then basically you are saying "government". and
> in that case you agree that if the "social
> consensus" was that atheists be burned at the
> stake (as indeed was once the case) then you would
> be cool with that.

No, you aren't basically saying that - but whatever. Also, I fail to see why atheists would be 'cool with' a set of laws that dictated that atheists be burned at the stakes. Further, I don't see a society being cool with that arbitrary law either. A functioning society wouldn't be, since a *new* arbitrary law could just as easily be made to effect those members who had not been originally burned at the stake.

> Wait. WhAT? You object? Well, of course you do. I
> object also. (There was nothing Biblical about the
> practice, which was a perversion of Christianity).

Oh, so you haven't actually *read* your book? Or are you making a difference (without a distinction) between Witches and Atheists?

> But since you are (or claim to be) an atheist,
> then your argument boils down to our rights being
> granted by you and everybody who agrees with you.

Not precisely.

>
> Now kindly answer parts ONE and TWO, and don't
> change the subject and attack this time. Do these
> clones have any rights? And if so, what is your
> authority for saying they do?

I've answered this.

Also, you realize that you are essentially appealing to the subjectivity of that authority, don't you?

In other words, what if God said that you should eat people. Would that make it right?

Oh, your god wouldn't say that, would he? Why? Is it because you believe there is a standard of goodness that your God relies on?

Oh, wait, let me guess, your God is that standard (meaning your God isn't a personal God at all). If that's the case, why not simply just believe that such a standard is an intrinsic part of the universe?

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Way to sidestep the question.
> > I know, of course that these clones will have
> > "independent will" which is why I said keep
> them
> > in stockades. The clones wouldn't HAVE any
> > rights. My question wqs NOT whether you had a
> > twin, either. The question wqs two parts.ONE,
> > would you consider this practice to be right,
> > wrong, or morally neutral.
>
> Why wouldn't they have any rights?
>
> I'm actually a twin as well and both my brother
> and I have rights.
>
> > TWO, what is your authority for calling this or
> > indeed anything "right" or "wrong"?? If our
> > rights are granted by government, then they can
> be
> > cancelled out by government also.
>
> My authority comes from the tentative agreement of
> the society I live in. It is culturally relative,
> for sure, but it is objective in the sense that we
> can compare it to other morality schemes and
> determine which one is superior at the goal of
> human happiness.
>
> You realize that your objections here (that rights
> can be cancelled) can be leveled at your God as
> well and is a red herring, with regard whether or
> not a morality is subjective or objective.
>
> > If you say our
> > rights stem from "social consensus" or some
> such,
> > then basically you are saying "government".
> and
> > in that case you agree that if the "social
> > consensus" was that atheists be burned at the
> > stake (as indeed was once the case) then you
> would
> > be cool with that.
>
> No, you aren't basically saying that - but
> whatever. Also, I fail to see why atheists would
> be 'cool with' a set of laws that dictated that
> atheists be burned at the stakes. Further, I
> don't see a society being cool with that arbitrary
> law either. A functioning society wouldn't be,
> since a *new* arbitrary law could just as easily
> be made to effect those members who had not been
> originally burned at the stake.
>
> > Wait. WhAT? You object? Well, of course you do.
> I
> > object also. (There was nothing Biblical about
> the
> > practice, which was a perversion of
> Christianity).
>
> Oh, so you haven't actually *read* your book? Or
> are you making a difference (without a
> distinction) between Witches and Atheists?
>
> > But since you are (or claim to be) an atheist,
> > then your argument boils down to our rights
> being
> > granted by you and everybody who agrees with
> you.
>
> Not precisely.
>
> >
> > Now kindly answer parts ONE and TWO, and don't
> > change the subject and attack this time. Do
> these
> > clones have any rights? And if so, what is your
> > authority for saying they do?
>
> I've answered this.
>
> Also, you realize that you are essentially
> appealing to the subjectivity of that authority,
> don't you?
>
> In other words, what if God said that you should
> eat people. Would that make it right?
>
> Oh, your god wouldn't say that, would he? Why? Is
> it because you believe there is a standard of
> goodness that your God relies on?
>
> Oh, wait, let me guess, your God is that standard
> (meaning your God isn't a personal God at all). If
> that's the case, why not simply just believe that
> such a standard is an intrinsic part of the
> universe?


I tried to answer point-by-point, but the LORD answered me by way of a connection failure that He did not wish me to do that. Here is what I have been authorized by the LORD to tell you:

You may not believe in the LORD now, but you will. I only hope it is not too late.

Not only do I believe that the standard is an intrinsic part of the Universe, but that the LORD Jesus of Nazareth, the Almighty God who lives forever and reigns for ever and ever, AMEN; IS THE SOURCE OF AND EMBODIMET OF THAT STANDARD. He is the Almighty Creator and Redeemer of the Universe. Every single thing that exists belongs to Him.

There is no such thing as a true atheist. God created you with lights in your soul. Atheists fear those lights, for sundry and varied reasons. They and also adherents of pagan religions often cite as reasons for believing as they do that the "prefer" to believe in a god who fits their pre-concieved view of the universe.

The ONLY valid reason for believing ANYTHING is because it is TRUE.

This is truth: There are only two possibilities. They are either the Joys of the Kingdom of Heaven or eternal separation from God, a torment known as "hell". In the eyes of the LORD I am no more or less precious to him than are you. God became human and walked among us, living a perfect life. He shed His Blood and lay down His Life to give our lives back to us.

My duty is that of a watchman, to warn you not to turn your back upon the King when He is offering you a Royal Pardon; and even more than that, an inheritance of linitless riches. Spurn it if you like. Laugh at it if you wish, who am I to stop you?? But you have been warned of the eternal consequenses.

The things you have said in your replies will - no kidding - sound to your ears like a "dog-ate-my-homework" story when you stand before the Lord. Amd you know this, and you fear it, and you muster all your knowledge and all your education and all your wit to deny it.

I would share that fate, except that God will see me covered in His inncent Blood. This is also available to you, should you but ask.

The decision is yours. I have fulfilled my duty to you as a watchman, and warned you of the approaching destruction and told you of the way out. You have a decision to take. I shall pray you take the opton that leds to the Kingdom, and hope to see you there.

I was wondering how long it would be until F. Allen dried up and offered the inevitable "death threats". I actually thought he would try a little harder and I'm a little disappointed.

Quoting the nonsensical, megalomaniacal christian doctrine and acting like a pawn for the "Great Mob Boss in the Sky" only reenforces my non-belief and disassociation from religion.

Thanks F. Allen

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was wondering how long it would be until F.
> Allen dried up and offered the inevitable "death
> threats". I actually thought he would try a little
> harder and I'm a little disappointed.
>
> Quoting the nonsensical, megalomaniacal christian
> doctrine and acting like a pawn for the "Great Mob
> Boss in the Sky" only reenforces my non-belief and
> disassociation from religion.
>
> Thanks F. Allen

I offer not a threat, but a warning of what is coming. You are free to call me a fool or whatever you like.
When the LORD saw what I had been writing, an inexplicable failure stopped me from posting. I have never encountered such a strange failure, even the offline resources I had would not allow me to post, even though I could post on other sites. Not until I deleted my post 2nd posted wh2t He 2uthorized wzs I zble to successfully post.
God is not the "Great Man-Boss in the sky". He is the Eternal and only Creator and Saviour of everything and every one who comes to Him. The choice is yours. Do as you wish, believe as you wish. But do you believe as you wish because it conforms with your wishes? Or do you believe what you believe because it is TRUE??
You are very welcome.

F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I tried to answer point-by-point, but the LORD
> answered me by way of a connection failure that He
> did not wish me to do that. Here is what I have
> been authorized by the LORD to tell you:

How exactly does the "Lord" talk to you? Through a neighbor's dog, perhaps?

> You may not believe in the LORD now, but you will.
> I only hope it is not too late.

You may believe in the Lord now, but you won't in time.

> Not only do I believe that the standard is an
> intrinsic part of the Universe, but that the LORD
> Jesus of Nazareth, the Almighty God who lives
> forever and reigns for ever and ever, AMEN; IS THE
> SOURCE OF AND EMBODIMET OF THAT STANDARD. He is
> the Almighty Creator and Redeemer of the Universe.
> Every single thing that exists belongs to Him.

That is a contradictory position to take. A moral standard is not a personal entity. Further, if your God was different, your standard would be different. Hence, the standard you profess is necessarily arbitrary.

SO:

1. Relying on a personal God AS the standard is incoherent.
2. If you are to believe in something, why not just the standard itself - it's metaphysically simpler and logically consistent (your current position, as noted, is not).

>
> There is no such thing as a true atheist.

Your opinion is noted and rejected in favor of empirical evidence to the contrary.

> God
> created you with lights in your soul.

This is meaningless mumbo-jumbo.

> Atheists
> fear those lights, for sundry and varied reasons.
> They and also adherents of pagan religions often
> cite as reasons for believing as they do that the
> "prefer" to believe in a god who fits their
> pre-concieved view of the universe.

This is a strawman - I fear no 'light' and I would actually prefer to live in a world with a omnimax personal entity. In other words, I provide empirical evidence that your supposition is wrong.

As to your non-sense about pagan religions - that has to be argued for, not assumed. You are begging the question.

> The ONLY valid reason for believing ANYTHING is
> because it is TRUE.

This is actually not necessarily true - it is perfectly valid to believe in a falsehood *if* such a belief achieves some goal. Say believing in the effects of a medicine even though it is, in reality, a placebo. I would say that reasons for belief are *contextual*.

> This is truth: There are only two possibilities.
> They are either the Joys of the Kingdom of Heaven
> or eternal separation from God, a torment known as
> "hell".

Again, this is false - it could be true that at the end of our life we will be weighed against Ma'at and those of us who do not know the proper incantations will be destroyed.

> In the eyes of the LORD I am no more or
> less precious to him than are you. God became
> human and walked among us, living a perfect life.
> He shed His Blood and lay down His Life to give
> our lives back to us.
>
> My duty is that of a watchman, to warn you not to
> turn your back upon the King when He is offering
> you a Royal Pardon; and even more than that, an
> inheritance of linitless riches. Spurn it if you
> like. Laugh at it if you wish, who am I to stop
> you?? But you have been warned of the eternal
> consequenses.

I do not laugh or spurn you - I point out that your arguments are illogical and your position is irrational. Your attempt at Pascal's Wager demonstrates that you are not well versed in apologetics, theology, or philosophy.

> The things you have said in your replies will - no
> kidding - sound to your ears like a
> "dog-ate-my-homework" story when you stand before
> the Lord. Amd you know this, and you fear it, and
> you muster all your knowledge and all your
> education and all your wit to deny it.
>
> I would share that fate, except that God will see
> me covered in His inncent Blood. This is also
> available to you, should you but ask.
>
> The decision is yours. I have fulfilled my duty to
> you as a watchman, and warned you of the
> approaching destruction and told you of the way
> out. You have a decision to take. I shall pray
> you take the opton that leds to the Kingdom, and
> hope to see you there.

Right now you are giving up the intellectual side of the argument and you are trying to appeal to fear - which, again, is not logical.

I think that readers can safely dismiss what you have to offer since it is irrational.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2010 07:57AM by Professor Pangloss.

F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I offer not a threat, but a warning of what is
> coming. You are free to call me a fool or whatever
> you like.

Um, you *did* appeal to a threat. Your God of love paradoxically will burn those he loves in hell.

This demonstrates the cognitive dissonance of some believers. You clearly threaten us with eternal hell fire if we do not believe and when you are called on it you *deny it*.

It boggles the mind.

> When the LORD saw what I had been writing, an
> inexplicable failure stopped me from posting. I
> have never encountered such a strange failure,
> even the offline resources I had would not allow
> me to post, even though I could post on other
> sites. Not until I deleted my post 2nd posted
> wh2t He 2uthorized wzs I zble to successfully
> post.
> God is not the "Great Man-Boss in the sky". He is
> the Eternal and only Creator and Saviour of
> everything and every one who comes to Him. The
> choice is yours. Do as you wish, believe as you
> wish. But do you believe as you wish because it
> conforms with your wishes? Or do you believe what
> you believe because it is TRUE??
> You are very welcome.

I have to ask, are you a Poe?

As to what I believe, I believe what I find to be the most rational appraisal of the evidence. It has nothing to do with my personal desires. If I based my beliefs on personal desires then I would believe in an afterlife, an eternal place of bliss, etc.

That seems to be what you believe though...Funny how you accuse us atheists of what you are suffering from.

Funny, a Poe asking someone if they are a Poe.
Is that your favorite line?
Cuz it's gettin' kinda stale.

As far as threats are concerned,

OBVIOUSLY YOU are the one who sees HELL as a THREAT and rightfully so.
Because you are fully aware that irrational logic is what you are using
to rationalize your DEEP DESIRE for NO GOD or CREATOR to exist despite
your grand explanation of everything as some huge Cosmological Crap-shoot.

Love how you use words that you think spice up your literary compositions to sound more intelligent.

For ex. "appraisal of the evidence".

Trying to SOUND smart makes you LOOK stupid.

More ex.s;

"Your God of love paradoxically will burn those he loves in hell."

AHHHHHEMMMMM there is NOTHING 'paradoxical' about it.
He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW. [like YOU, Ass-Gloss]

"This demonstrates the cognitive dissonance of some believers."

YOU demonstrate RATIONAL DISSONANCE, when you look @ the world around you
and LIE to yourself and others about it being self perpetuating when the
LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS CLEARLY refute your PISS-POOR Athiest defenses
for your bombastic assertions.

Think maybe it might help to think about it like this;
time and space are like pixels on your TV.
It is NOTHING until it gets a command to be something.
The pixels -or possibility of time space and matter has to be created.
Otherwise there is just NOTHING, the same nothing you faggots want
us to believe we should attribute our existance to.

U R PATHETIC.

Nothing from Nothing leaves NOTHING Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny, a Poe asking someone if they are a Poe.
> Is that your favorite line?
> Cuz it's gettin' kinda stale.

?

I'm not a Poe.

> As far as threats are concerned,
>
> OBVIOUSLY YOU are the one who sees HELL as a
> THREAT and rightfully so.

It's extortion. Believe or burn. As noted by others, the Mafia uses similar tactics - Pay or get a broken leg.

> Because you are fully aware that irrational logic
> is what you are using
> to rationalize your DEEP DESIRE for NO GOD or
> CREATOR to exist despite
> your grand explanation of everything as some huge
> Cosmological Crap-shoot.

This is an ad-hom - an appeal to character - it doesn't actually refute anything that I've written. It's a distraction technique that is meant to take the reader away from the problems with the argument.

Did you think that no one would notice that you were doing this?

> Love how you use words that you think spice up
> your literary compositions to sound more
> intelligent.
>
> For ex. "appraisal of the evidence".
>
> Trying to SOUND smart makes you LOOK stupid.

Noted: Words emasculate you and make you defensive.

> More ex.s;
>
> "Your God of love paradoxically will burn those he
> loves in hell."
>
> AHHHHHEMMMMM there is NOTHING 'paradoxical'
> about it.
> He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW.

So your God is not omniscient?

> "This demonstrates the cognitive dissonance of
> some believers."
>
> YOU demonstrate RATIONAL DISSONANCE, when you look
> @ the world around you
> and LIE to yourself and others about it being self
> perpetuating when the

"Rational Dissonance"? Is that supposed to be an insult? I take it you don't know what the words mean, since you didn't use them correctly here - in fact, it's kind of funny how you used them, since you appear to be serious.

You are the poster who used to go by 'troll' something, right?

Read up on Cognitive dissonance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

> LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS CLEARLY refute your
> PISS-POOR Athiest defenses
> for your bombastic assertions.

Yeah, I'm sure you think they do. I bet you don't know (sans google) how many laws of thermodynamics there are or what they are. I fail to see why we should take your word on the matter though.

> Think maybe it might help to think about it like
> this;
> time and space are like pixels on your TV.
> It is NOTHING until it gets a command to be
> something.
> The pixels -or possibility of time space and
> matter has to be created.

I think it would help if you caught up with modern physics - your grasp on the subject betrays the idea of the a theory of time, which I've gone over with you several times now.

> Otherwise there is just NOTHING, the same nothing
> you faggots want
> us to believe we should attribute our existance
> to.
>
> U R PATHETIC.

You can't argue your side, so you breakdown and hurl insults.

I'm underwhelmed. Further, you know that I don't support the notion that there ever was 'nothing'. Either you can't keep up with the conversation or you don't care to. In either case, why should anyone care about your opinion?

Nothing from Nothing leaves NOTHING Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny, a Poe asking someone if they are a Poe.
> Is that your favorite line?
> Cuz it's gettin' kinda stale.

?

I'm not a Poe.

***YES YOU ARE.

> As far as threats are concerned,
>
> OBVIOUSLY YOU are the one who sees HELL as a
> THREAT and rightfully so.

It's extortion.

*** "APPRAISAL" NOW "EXTORTION" see the pattern.

Believe or burn. As noted by others, the Mafia uses similar tactics
- Pay or get a broken leg.

*** TALK ABOUT IRRELEVANT NONSENSICAL TANGENTS

> Because you are fully aware that irrational logic
> is what you are using
> to rationalize your DEEP DESIRE for NO GOD or
> CREATOR to exist despite
> your grand explanation of everything as some huge
> Cosmological Crap-shoot.

This is an ad-hom

*** NO IT'S NOT

- an appeal to character

*** AGAIN NO IT'S NOT

- it doesn't actually refute anything that I've written.

*** YES IT DOES & YOU KNOW IT

It's a distraction technique that is meant to take the reader
away from the problems with the argument.

*** TALK ABOUT DISTRACTIONS

Did you think that no one would notice that you were doing this?

*** DID YOU THINK NOBODY WOULD NOTICE YOUR STATEMENT WAS PURE-BULLSHIT
AND AN OBVIOUS GOOSE-NECKED FLEA-BRAINED REBUTTAL

> Love how you use words that you think spice up
> your literary compositions to sound more
> intelligent.
>
> For ex. "appraisal of the evidence".
>
> Trying to SOUND smart makes you LOOK stupid.

Noted: Words emasculate you and make you defensive.

*** NOTE YOUR MENTAL HANDICAP WHILE YOU ARE @ IT

> More ex.s;
>
> "Your God of love paradoxically will burn those he
> loves in hell."
>
> AHHHHHEMMMMM there is NOTHING 'paradoxical'
> about it.
> He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW.

So your God is not omniscient?

*** WHY WOULD YOU DOUBT GOD'S OMNISCIENCE?
BECAUSE YOU ARE A MORON TRYING TO DIRECT ATTENTION
FROM THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO PARADOX AND YOUR USE
OF THE WORD WAS YET AGAIN ANOTHER FAILED ATTEMPT TO
MAKE THE CASUAL READER THINK YOU ARE SMART OR KNOW WHAT
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THE LEAST BIT.

> "This demonstrates the cognitive dissonance of
> some believers."
>
> YOU demonstrate RATIONAL DISSONANCE, when you look
> @ the world around you
> and LIE to yourself and others about it being self
> perpetuating when the

"Rational Dissonance"?

*** YES, THAT'S WHAT I WROTE

Is that supposed to be an insult?

***WHY ASK STUPID QUESTIONS?

I take it you don't know what the words mean, since you didn't use them correctly here

***YES I DID

- in fact, it's kind of funny how you used them,

***REALLY, A DAMNED COMPELLING ARGUMENT YOU ARE CRAFTING

since you appear to be serious.

*** UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, YOU ARE SERIOUSLY STUPID

You are the poster who used to go by 'troll' something, right?

*** WHO CARES IDIOT, YOU GOT NOTHING SO FAR

Read up on Cognitive dissonance: [en.wikipedia.org]

*** NO THANKS THAT WOULD BE LIKE ME RE-READING THE STATE DRIVERS ED MANUAL

> LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS CLEARLY refute your
> PISS-POOR Athiest defenses
> for your bombastic assertions.

Yeah, I'm sure you think they do. I bet you don't know (sans google) how many laws of thermodynamics there are or what they are. I fail to see why we should take your word on the matter though.

I FAIL TO SEE ANY RELEVANT ARGUMENTS THUS FAR

> Think maybe it might help to think about it like
> this;
> time and space are like pixels on your TV.
> It is NOTHING until it gets a command to be
> something.
> The pixels -or possibility of time space and
> matter has to be created.

I think it would help if you caught up with modern physics - your grasp on the subject betrays the idea of the a theory of time,
which I've gone over with you several times now.

*** NO YOU HAVE NOT, BUT AGAIN YOUR THEORY AND ARGUMENT ARE STILL IRRELEVANT

> Otherwise there is just NOTHING, the same nothing
> you faggots want
> us to believe we should attribute our existance
> to.
>
> U R PATHETIC.

You can't argue your side, so you breakdown and hurl insults.

*** U R PATHETIC is a really BAD INSULT HUH?

NOPE JUST A *FACT*

I'm underwhelmed.

*** BECAUSE YOU ARE RETARDED

Further, you know that I don't support the notion that there ever was 'nothing'.

***OH OKAY THEN, SO IF THERE WAS NEVER NOTHING, THEN WHAT WAS HERE BEFORE THIS?

Either you can't keep up with the conversation or you don't care to.

*** YOU'RE ONE TO TALK

In either case, why should anyone care about your opinion?

*** THAT'S JUST THE THING, *NOBODY* DOES, NO MORE THAN THEY CARE ABOUT YOURS.
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT PISS-POOR ILLOGICAL CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS.

YOU are my PUPPET Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing from Nothing leaves NOTHING Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Funny, a Poe asking someone if they are a Poe.
> > Is that your favorite line?
> > Cuz it's gettin' kinda stale.
>
> ?
>
> I'm not a Poe.
>
> ***YES YOU ARE.


Obviously you don't know what a Poe is.


> > As far as threats are concerned,
> >
> > OBVIOUSLY YOU are the one who sees HELL as a
> > THREAT and rightfully so.
>
> It's extortion.
>
> *** "APPRAISAL" NOW "EXTORTION" see the pattern.


?

Not at all, actually. WRT Appraisal, I was talking about the evidence. With regard to extortion I was talking about your God's actions.

Two different things.

I'm continually puzzled

>
> Believe or burn. As noted by others, the Mafia
> uses similar tactics
> - Pay or get a broken leg.
>
> *** TALK ABOUT IRRELEVANT NONSENSICAL TANGENTS

Okay, now this tells me that you aren't even paying attention.

Look man, I disengaged with you once before and I'm going to do it again now. There is no benefit in dialogue with you. All you do is post irrational nonsense and when you are called on it you spout inflammatory rhetoric. You get 'insulted' when people use words you don't understand and you continually fail to keep up with the conversation.

In short you are a complete waste of time.

I did find this bit of cognitive dissonance funny, though, so I had to mention it:

You wrote:
> He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW.

Later you blathered:

>*** WHY WOULD YOU DOUBT GOD'S OMNISCIENCE?


Comedy gold right there.

Do you even read what *YOU* write?

Professor Idiot-Gloss wrote :

> "Obviously you don't know what a Poe is."

WHAT A COMPELLING ARGUMENT YOU HAVE MADE, MORON.


> > As far as threats are concerned,
> >
> > OBVIOUSLY YOU are the one who sees HELL as a
> > THREAT and rightfully so.
>
> It's extortion.
>
> *** "APPRAISAL" NOW "EXTORTION" see the pattern.


?

> "Not at all, actually. WRT Appraisal, I was talking about the evidence.
> With regard to extortion I was talking about your God's actions.

> Two different things."

THE MOST COMMON USAGE OF APPRAISAL HAS TO DO WITH MONEY VALUATION
EXTORTION AGAIN HAS TO DO WITH MONEY.
ONE TRACK MIND MUCH?

> "I'm continually puzzled"

THIS IS NORMAL FOR MORONS LIKE *YOU*

>
> Believe or burn. As noted by others, the Mafia
> uses similar tactics
> - Pay or get a broken leg.
>
> *** TALK ABOUT IRRELEVANT NONSENSICAL TANGENTS

> Okay, now this tells me that you aren't even paying attention.

AGAIN, WHAT A COMPELLING ARGUMENT YOU PRESENT

> Look man, I disengaged with you once before and I'm going to do it again now.

BECAUSE YOU PRESENT NOTHING BUT NONSENSE AND CLAIM TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS

> There is no benefit in dialogue with you.

LIKEWISE

> All you do is post irrational nonsense

YOU ARE GETTING ME CONFUSED WITH YOURSELF

> and when you are called on it

YOU HAVE NOT CALLED SHIT BOZO

> you spout inflammatory rhetoric.

GEEZ, WHO'DA THOUGHT YOU WOULD TAKE SO MUCH OFFENSE TOE TYPING "U R PATHETIC"

> You get 'insulted'

I'M NOT INSULTED BY MENTAL NEANDERTHALS LIKE YOURSELF

> when people use words you don't understand

GIMME A BREAK ASSWIPE, EVEN WITH ELECTRONIC THESAURUSES AT YOUR DISPOSAL YOU ***CONTINUALLU*** USE WORDS BOTH WITH IMPROPER MEANING AND OUT OF CONTEXT.

> "and you continually fail to keep up with the conversation."

MY FAVORITE THING ABOUT YOU IS YOUR LONG BEAUTIFUL HAIR
AND THAT SPARKLE IN YOUR EYE.

> In short you are a complete waste of time.

YEAH, YOU'RE ONE TO TALK. Not only are you a LOSER you're a QUITER

> I did find this bit of cognitive dissonance funny, though, so I had to mention it:

You wrote:
> He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW.

AS IN HE CHOOSES NOT TO KNOW YOU, BECAUSE YOU CHOSE HELL OVER SEEKING HIM.
OF COURSE HE KNOWD OF YOUR EXISTENCE, JUST LIKE YOU KNOW THE EXISTENCE OF A TURD YOU SHIT IN YOUR TOILET BOWL.

IT IS NO SURPRISE I HAD TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU THOUGH.

Later you blathered:

>*** WHY WOULD YOU DOUBT GOD'S OMNISCIENCE?


> Comedy gold right there.

NO IT'S NOT MORON
-*FAR* FROM IT, BOZO
BUT KEEP LAUGHING, BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS LAUGHING AT YOU.

> Do you even read what *YOU* write?

ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE WORD *FAILURE* SHOULD HAVE
YOUR PICTURE NEXT TO IT IN THE DICTIONARY?

More comedy gold:

>GIMME A BREAK ASSWIPE, EVEN WITH ELECTRONIC THESAURUSES AT YOUR DISPOSAL YOU >***CONTINUALLU*** USE WORDS BOTH WITH IMPROPER MEANING AND OUT OF CONTEXT.

"Continuallu"

:-)

Comedy gold right there - attempting to scold me on my use of words while misspelling a fairly simple word to spell.

More comedy gold in your post:
When arguing about omniscience(because this is funny):

I called you out saying that your God wasn't omniscient according to your own definition, since you specifically said that "He does NOT love those who he does NOT KNOW."

Instead of refuting me, you only further hammer home the point that your God isn't omniscient when you write:

>AS IN HE CHOOSES NOT TO KNOW YOU

Funny troll is funny.

Look, 'choice' doesn't matter with regard to omniscience (in this context) since you are admitting that God doesn't 'know me'. Let me repeat:

You.are.admitting.God.doesn't.know.something.

It doesn't matter if he 'choose' not to know it or if it was forced.

You don't get this - which is funny.

I'm done with you - all you are doing is providing evidence for what I've written: You don't know what you are talking, you misuse words, and you can't follow a conversation.

Again your "comedy gold" is nothing other than a simple *typo*
-NOT even a "misspelling".

What a COMPLETE FAGGOT you are.


> "Instead of refuting me,"

WHY? YOU DO SUCH A GOOD JOB OF REFUTING YOURSELF!

> "you only further hammer home the point that your
> God isn't omniscient when you write:"

LOOK AT YOU, ACTING AS THOUGH I AM "HAMMERING HOME"
SOME QUEER WISHFULL OPINION OF YOURS.
AND HE IS *YOUR* GOD ALSO REGARDLESS OF YOU DENYING HIM

>AS IN HE CHOOSES NOT TO KNOW YOU

> "Funny troll is funny."

PROFESSOR PANGLOSS = NOT FUNNY [but FUNNY to laugh @]

> "Look, 'choice' doesn't matter with regard to omniscience (in this context)"

IRRELEVANT AND POINTLESS STATEMENT

> "since you are admitting that God doesn't 'know me'."

I AM ADMITTING NO SUCH THING.
IT WAS FIGURATIVE SPEECH, AS I *ALREADY* HAVE EXPLAINED.
HE KNOWS YOU AND IS YOUR GOD, LIKE IT OR NOT.

> Let me repeat:

> "You.are.admitting.God.doesn't.know.something."

NOW LET ME REPEAT.

I.Have.Admitted.No.Such.Thing.

> "It doesn't matter if he 'choose' not to know it or if it was forced."

WHAT IS IT?

AND IF HE CHOOSES TO NOT INTERACT WITH 'IT' IN EFFECT IT CAN NOT KNOW HIM THEREFORE 'IT' IS ... You ready? *** NOT RELEVANT***

LIKE YOU : )~

> "You don't get this - which is funny."

YOU ARE DEFINITELY 'FUNNY', ACTUALLY YOUR LEVEL OF STUPIDITY IS MORE ON THE HILARIOUS SIDE.

> "I'm done with you - all you are doing is providing evidence
> for what I've written:"

HAHA! YEAH RIGHT BOZO.

> "You don't know what you are talking"

OK, IF YOU SAY SO. JUST KEEP IN MIND YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN
YOURSELF ANY AUTHORITY ABOUT SHIT !

> ", you misuse words"

DON'T TWIST YOUR FATAL FLAW AROUND AND ACT LIKE I AM AS DUMB AS YOU ARE WITH ALL THE EXAMPLES I HAVE GIVEN YOU THUS FAR CONCERNING YOUR POOR GRAMATICAL COMPOSITIONS AND RETARDED LITERARY DIATRIBES

> ", and you can't follow a conversation."

WELL IF SO, YOUR RUNNING OFF ON IRRELEVANT TANGENTS TO THE DISCUSSION LIKE FIXATING ON TYPOS AND DISREGARDING THE TOPIC AND OR QUESTIONS -DOESN'T HELP AT ALL.

I feel like I should pat you on the head and tell you that everything is going to be alright. Calm down, this is just the intrawebs, man. If you can't admit when you've been schooled, then the internet is no place for you.

Wow.
That just sounded really GAY.

You LOSE.

Play again?

Insert three tokens.

Player2 time left: 7

Hey "Nothing from Nothing";

I assume you are a Christian. So please do remember that we are commissioned to show these misguided precious folks the way out of their predicament. Why on Earth are you using the term "faggot"?? First, some of the hardest-to-reach souls on this planet are homosexual persons. They have been excoriated from the pulpit so much that they have become hardened to the true message of the Gospel. So-called "Ex-Gay" ministeries have done much damage in this regard, mainly because they have as their central goal NOT the honosexual's turning to Jesus, but in the conversion of a homosexual into a married, normal family guy. While it might be nice if this could be done, JOB ONE IS NOT TURNING GAY PEOPLE STRAIGHT. JOB ONE IS SHOWING THEM THEIR NEED FOR GOD'S MERCY AND TELLING THEM HOW IT CAN BE OBTAINED. And don't get me started about the loons in the so-called "Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka Kansas". The net effect of such approaches is not the winning of souls to the LORD, but a hardening of hearts and a turning away from God, which is exactly what the enemy wants.

Second, insulting and condemning should be left to those who oppose us. We know, do we not, that "There is threfore now NO CONDEMNATION TO THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST JESUS"?? We are not here called to keel-haul unbelievers under the church bus. Do you not know what the LORD said to Jeremiah the Prophet? "I WILL WATCH MY WORD TO PERFORM IT"; and to Isaiah; "MY WORD SHALL NOT RETURN TO ME EMPTY, BUT SHALL ACCOMPLISH THAT FOR WHICH I SENT IT FORTH".

Speak the Truth in Love, my brother. Remember that the seed you sow may wind up on rocky soil or get choked with weeds. But some will sprout and yield a great harvest. No one will come to Jesus because we speak to them, but that he lays it on their hearts to look honestly at what we have said, and at what they believe, and to seek the truth.

We are dealing with people who are precious to God. Insulting them does the cause of our LORD no good, and in fact is almost inevitably counter-productive. We do what we can. We must trust the Holy Spirit to do the rest.

Yours in Christ,
F. Allen Norman, Jr.

Norman, he's not a Christian, he is a troll (his old username). They operate under a different set of morals.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2010 06:41AM by Professor Pangloss.

My, my. Lost sheep everywhere I look.

I am beginning to feel a bit like Little Bo Peep.

To all the haters on this site does it not clearly say in the bible Luke 6:42 "How can you think of saying, 'Friend, let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,' when you can't see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye." stop being hypocrits. and if yur going to say all these things do them on FACTS.

Just RELEASE THE FINANCIALS!

Jill's House was supposed to be an independent organization. To hide the "miss-handling" of funds thus pulling one over on the initial investors as well avoiding IRS obligations, they made it part of the church.

Sadly the church cannot afford this expense and Jill's House will not as it was initially presented and intended.

Repentance begins with admission and coming clean. So I'm praying for the surrender and wisdom of the MBC Leaders.

Unfortunately such disclosure will entail a reduction of "entitlements" to many who are employed, and as we have seen in Congress and the Senate, that is a very hard move to make.

I'm all for financially supporting MBC financially after, and only after, the return to the practice of full Financial Disclosure.

Anyone here who proclaims their faith in Christ, should know the emphasis Jesus placed on Money in the Bible. Don't buy the baloney that says financial confidentiality is Biblical. That is heresy, and bad doctrine. You cannot get that conclusion biblically. That belief is only propagated by those who interpret scripture for their own benefit. It conveys the idea that God's supreme Sovereignty is imperfect as it cannot protect true financial details from onlooking men. Sorry... Those who know God, know he is Sovereign in all things.

Disclose your truths MBC and let the cards fall where they may. Trust God with what you say is His!

What mis-handling? What disclosure? (The budget is made public). Any facts?

Do you want all individual salaries published? (Is that what they do at your work?)

Actually, is that you Fran? If so, you seem to have softened your tone from when you were holding signs on Route 7, so perhaps it's not you.

As long as the McLean Bible church doesn't have sex with the children like the Catholic church does, then they are okay with me.

Neither McLean Bible Church or the Catholic Church has sex with children. Only perverted members or priests of any church could do that. It's not accurate to say any church does.

Snow,

R U Kidding? They do not disclose any meaningful derails to allow ANY non- reproachable accountability. There are several Christian financial accountability standards that define minimal levels of disclosure for accountability and McLean won't come close to revealing that minuscule amount of data.

Yes, the company I work for discloses salaries. All public companies disclose management / leaders total compensation. You'd think a church would before willing to demonstrate their stewardship and financial integrity compared to a public company.

Fran? I don't know Fran.

What you obviously don't know is simply McLean USED to disclose their financial details, including Lon's compensation. In fact, they used to boast about their open standards and the integrity of their own financial integrity. That all ended during the BFL (Building for Life) fund raising campaign when the move from the Ball's Hill building commenced. In the old building, before all the large financing, you could take the printed financials home. Not today.

I'm surprised some reporter hasn't yet, and will be surprised if one doesn't soon seek (attempt to seek) these simple truths.

MBC used to claim they compensated Senior staff congruent to that of the Fairfax County's Avg Inc per capita. That is such a farse given: Clergy tax benefits, Housing allowance abuse, External Speaking engagements while away on "Church" excursions, etc.

I doubt MBC will be able to handle the facts as they are if they tried to return to their original levels of disclosure in the late 90's.

Snow, I'm glad to see you seek to defend what you believe in. However, I'm dad your beliefs are based on false or incomplete facts.

In God's honor, I write.

OneWhoKnows

Whoever is saying MBC is engaged in jiggery-pokery with money, please post here as completely as you can (and coherently, please) ALL details. The only thing I get from here is that there are a lot of rumors, and as one poster stated it is surprising if there is really all this smoke that the liberal anti-Christian media would be sniffing out the fire.


Where there's smoke, there's fire. But sometimes the "smoke' turns out to be a lot of steam generated by a lot of hot air.

religious people are truely the evil ones these days. i dont mind if you want to believe in whatever god you feel like believing in, but keep that shit to yourself.More people have DIED over religion than both world wars & vietnam combined.

Mormons are much worse. They believe CRAZY shit AND condemn all those outside of their ridiculous religion.

rob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> religious people are truely the evil ones these
> days. i dont mind if you want to believe in
> whatever god you feel like believing in, but keep
> that shit to yourself.More people have DIED over
> religion than both world wars & vietnam combined.

Christians are commanded and commissioned to "proclaim the Gospel". That some folks involved in Christianity and other belief systems see their duty as being to FORCE others to believe is not a characteritic of God, but of sinful men who are looking for an excuse to dominate others.

Why you would want me to "keep to myself" the offer of a full and free pardon from the Almighty Creator and Redeemer of the Universe is beyond me. And in any case I cannot and will not "Keep it to myself". Christians are not commanded to take over politics and force the nations to conform to Christian standards. You are confusing us with Islam.

What we Christians are doing (and why people oppose us even as they preach tolerance for such a repressive belief as Islam) is that spiritually we are the person on the bus who offers a mint to someone with bad breath. We try to do it politely (and frankly some of us need another mint ourselves); but even this gentle appproach is often met with hostility by those who widh to deny that they have - spiritually speaking - bad breath.

Now, I believe that Jesus is Jehovah God, that He walked among us and lived a sinless life, that He became sin for me and took my guilt to the Cross, where He lay down His life; and that He rose from the dead and took His Life back up. The Bible says that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is God, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, then you are saved.

That is ten-second salvation. Those are the requirements, there qre no others. You don't have to go to church, you don't have to be a good boy, you don't have to live up to some standard. Say that, and believe that, and you are saved from condemnation no matter your misdeeds. Say it not, and believe it not, and you are bound for Hell no matter your good works.

Mint?

Just one question: where did god come from? If the world needed creating, surely god does to right?

And while you're pondering that, why did god choose to create the universe approximately 13.7 billion years ago and wait until only 2,000 years ago to bring his savior to Earth?

There are also 2 simple reason to reject Jesus as your savior: virgins can't get pregnant and people can't walk on water.

Dear Friends,
Someone made the argument that people can't walk on water ... to 'prove' that certain stories told in the bible are not believable. I attended McLean Bible Church when it had no buildings: We met at a public school - and prayed for God to show the way to a more suitable facility. We prayed - and God came through!
O.K., some of you probably don't believe that. Here is another, very personal experience, (one of several in my life):
Like Lon Solomon, I come from Jewish roots. One of my aunts (married to a medical doctor) lived on Long Island and invited our family of three to drive from Burnt Hills, NY, to meet them at their German-Jewish resort in Roscoe, NY, (near NY City), one weekend about 25 years ago. (In caasse you wonder: I celebrated my 89th birthday a couple of weeks ago... I now live in Gretna, LA.)
We (wife, daughter, and I) drove down to Roscoe on a Saturday, shared a wonderful afternoon and dinner, and joined my relatives for an evening of live classical music, then stayed the night and started our return Sunday morning.
After driving for 10 or 15 minutes, I became aware of unease in our car - and learned that my wife missed her small diamond ring... an item of great sentimental value to her I stopped and led in prayer that God would help us find the ring.
Martha only knew she had the ring on her finger (and played with it) at the dinner table the night before! (It was clear later, that she lost it when saying good-bye to my aunt, and it droped into the deep grass where we stood.)
Since we couldn't find it in the car, I drove back to the field where we had parked. We split up, the two women heading to the place where they had slept, and I toward the facility's office.
I felt it was a hopeless undertaking — for all practical purposes ("FAPP" in modern physics) we had ZERO chance of finding the ring in the hours that we could devote to the search. With growing despair in my heart, I slowed to a stop and confessed my hopelessness to God in a silent prayer.
I slowly opened my eyes, and could not help noting the beam of reflected sunlight coming from the deep grass in front of me.
My immediate thought: "Am I going to pick up every bit of glass or look at every reflecting bottle cap ...??" And yet: "I just prayed!! When am I going to follow through?" So, I bent down and searched for the object in the grass ... That turned out to be futile: I found exactly NOTHING - yet KNEW THERE HAD TO BE SOMETHING!"
Being a scientist/engineer, it dawned on me to just stand up and recapture (if I could) the relected sun-beam in my eyes - and pursue it down to its source. That source turned out to be my wife's engagement ring... She died years ago, but We still have the ring!
Dear friends, the probability of that happening is FAPP ZERO! (About the same as the chance of my getting a PhD from Stanford University, for solving mathematical formulas that describe the growth of dendritic crystals, such as snow flakes".)
For me, the evidence that prayer is answered is overwhelming: I have experienced other answers to prayer -and so have members of MBC whose good senseis beyond question!

By the way, ten years after that "miracle", my oldest son visited us from Euroope. At my request we drove back to Roscoe and Tennanah Lake - and were astounded to find the facility where my relatives had entertained us had, in the course of the decade, changed hands and was then part of "A Course in MIracles" (ACIM)... Interesting, don't you agree?!
YOu know: I could be wrong in all this.
And so could one or two of you!
Have wonderful 2010 Holiday Season!
Enjoy the MUSIC!
And each other!!!
Ernie

> "Just one question: where did god come from?"

GOD JUST IS, HE NEEDS NO PLACE TO COME FROM.
THE FACT YOU KNOW MATTER NEEDS AN ORGIN, PROVES IT NEEDS A CREATOR.
GOD IS NOT MATTER BUT A SPIRIT THAT DWELLS IN ALL DIMENSIONS IT HAS CREATED.

> "If the world needed creating, surely god does to right?"

WRONG. I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY.

> "And while you're pondering that,

I THOUGHT YOU HAD "JUST ONE QUESTION"

> "why did god choose to create the universe approximately 13.7 billion
> years ago

HE JUST DID.
WHY DID YOU WIPE YOUR ASS THE LAST TIME YOU TOOK A SHIT ?

> "and wait until only 2,000 years ago to bring his savior to Earth?

ARE YOU ASKING ME IF THERE IS RAPTOR-JESUS,
WHY IS THERE NO NEADERTHAL-JESUS ?

> "There are also 2 simple reason to reject Jesus as your savior:
> virgins can't get pregnant"

THEY CAN IF GOD PERFORMS A "MIRACLE" AND MAKES HER PREGNANT.
GOD CAN DO THE IMPOSSIBLE AND WORK OUTSIDE OF PHYSICS, BEING THAT
HE CREATED THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, SPACE, TIME, MATTER, AND VIRGINS.

> "and people can't walk on water."

EXACTLY, "PEOPLE" CAN NOT WALK ON WATER.
APPARENTLY JESUS WAS NOT A NORMAL PEOPLE, AND COULD PERFORM MIRACLES
LIKE WALKING ON WATER.

F. Allen Norman Jr Wrote:
> Christians are not commanded to take
> over politics and force the nations to conform to
> Christian standards.

An awful lot of Christians believe that they are, in fact, duty bound to do just that.

Why should we accept your word over theirs?

Ernie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After driving for 10 or 15 minutes, I became
> aware of unease in our car - and learned that my
> wife missed her small diamond ring... an item of
> great sentimental value to her I stopped and led
> in prayer that God would help us find the ring.
> Martha only knew she had the ring on her finger
> (and played with it) at the dinner table the night
> before! (It was clear later, that she lost it
> when saying good-bye to my aunt, and it droped
> into the deep grass where we stood.)
> Since we couldn't find it in the car, I drove
> back to the field where we had parked. We split
> up, the two women heading to the place where they
> had slept, and I toward the facility's office.
> I felt it was a hopeless undertaking — for all
> practical purposes ("FAPP" in modern physics) we
> had ZERO chance of finding the ring in the hours
> that we could devote to the search. With growing
> despair in my heart, I slowed to a stop and
> confessed my hopelessness to God in a silent
> prayer.
> I slowly opened my eyes, and could not help
> noting the beam of reflected sunlight coming from
> the deep grass in front of me.
> My immediate thought: "Am I going to pick up
> every bit of glass or look at every reflecting
> bottle cap ...??" And yet: "I just prayed!! When
> am I going to follow through?" So, I bent down and
> searched for the object in the grass ... That
> turned out to be futile: I found exactly NOTHING
> - yet KNEW THERE HAD TO BE SOMETHING!"
> Being a scientist/engineer, it dawned on me to
> just stand up and recapture (if I could) the
> relected sun-beam in my eyes - and pursue it down
> to its source. That source turned out to be my
> wife's engagement ring... She died years ago, but
> We still have the ring!
> Dear friends, the probability of that happening
> is FAPP ZERO! (About the same as the chance of my
> getting a PhD from Stanford University, for
> solving mathematical formulas that describe the
> growth of dendritic crystals, such as snow
> flakes".)

So let me get this straight - instead of curing someone of a disease or healing an amputated limb, God decided to let you find a ring? Jesus, who said that you should give up your worldly possessions to follow him, helped you find a ring?

> By the way, ten years after that "miracle", my
> oldest son visited us from Euroope.

It used to be that people considered violations of the laws of nature, 'miracles', now it's the ability to find something that you lost?



I don't buy it.

*FU QuestionAnswererBot* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> EXACTLY, "PEOPLE" CAN NOT WALK ON WATER.
> APPARENTLY JESUS WAS NOT A NORMAL PEOPLE, AND
> COULD PERFORM MIRACLES
> LIKE WALKING ON WATER.


Chris Angel can 'walk on water', do you think he's a magic-God-man too, troll?

Hmmm, tons of hate directed at MBC and Solomon. He must be touching a nerve. Sad that atheists can't live an let live. MBC provides Christmas and Thanksgiving to thousands of families who otherwise couldn't afford it. They provide after-school care and tutoring to hundreds of kids in inner-city DC and PWC that otherwise would be left to wander the streets or sit at home while their parent(s) were out trying to earn a living. Question an atheist's god (the benevolent all-knowing leftist State) and their dogma (half-baked science ala global warming or embryonic stem cells) and they froth at the mouth and march down our streets burning cars and businesses. Yet they can't let Christians do the good works they are called to do without trying to tear it down and call names. To what end?

é²® Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmmm, tons of hate directed at MBC and Solomon.
> He must be touching a nerve. Sad that atheists
> can't live an let live.

If Christians would let atheists and people of other religions 'live and let live' then this sort of 'hate' wouldn't exist.

> MBC provides Christmas
> and Thanksgiving to thousands of families who
> otherwise couldn't afford it. They provide
> after-school care and tutoring to hundreds of kids
> in inner-city DC and PWC that otherwise would be
> left to wander the streets or sit at home while
> their parent(s) were out trying to earn a living.

All good things.

> Question an atheist's god (the benevolent
> all-knowing leftist State)

You are conflating 'atheist' with 'communist'. Your mistake.

> and their dogma
> (half-baked science ala global warming or
> embryonic stem cells)

You are conflating 'atheist' with 'environmentalist'. Again, your mistake.

> and they froth at the mouth
> and march down our streets burning cars and
> businesses.

?

> Yet they can't let Christians do the
> good works they are called to do without trying to
> tear it down and call names. To what end?

*sigh*

It's like you've conveniently forgotten that while religion can be used for good causes, it can also be used for evil ones as well. People should not be afraid to question/criticize religion. When people are afraid of doing such, inquisitions happen.

PP,

I don't understand your comment about Christians letting other's live and let live. Your comments come across as more anti-Christian than atheist.

If one studies history, they will see that Statists wage war on the Church and religion in order to place the State above God. Liberals seem to believe that the government (as long as they are in control of it of course) knows better what is morally right and wrong than either the people do or some old book written thousands of years ago. Don't see a lot of conservative atheists (although there are some). Atheists seem to align almost exclusively with the left (again, I say almost as there are a group of libertarian atheists that align to neither the right or left). So my observations and opinions are just that.

Your point about religion is valid. However, I was talking about Christians and, in this thread, about MBC specifically. Yes, people do terrible acts in the name of all sorts of things (progress, politics, religion, the public good, etc). However, based on what I've read in this thread, the beef against MBC is that some of the members aren't walking the talk, Lon Solomon has a nice house and drives nice cars, MBC creates traffic problems for some and the church won't disavow the bible and embrace a militant homosexual agenda. All pretty lame for such hate-filled name calling and seemingly irrational vile IMO.

And again, my question remains unanswered: To what end?

tmill9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Neither McLean Bible Church or the Catholic Church
> has sex with children. Only perverted members or
> priests of any church could do that. It's not
> accurate to say any church does.


Okay, you're right, perverted Priests did the actually molestation. But it was the church that covered it up and shuffled the priests from one church to another so more innocent children could be raped. Yes, the Catholic Church did that.

â–  Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PP,
>
> I don't understand your comment about Christians
> letting other's live and let live. Your comments
> come across as more anti-Christian than atheist.

Criticism does not equate to 'anti-christian'. My response was a response to the opposite accusation - one that i noticed you didn't touch.

> If one studies history, they will see that
> Statists wage war on the Church and religion in
> order to place the State above God. Liberals seem
> to believe that the government (as long as they
> are in control of it of course) knows better what
> is morally right and wrong than either the people
> do or some old book written thousands of years
> ago. Don't see a lot of conservative atheists
> (although there are some). Atheists seem to align
> almost exclusively with the left (again, I say
> almost as there are a group of libertarian
> atheists that align to neither the right or left).
> So my observations and opinions are just that.

These are all strawmen. Your personal observations about the political leanings of atheists are interesting, but not actually germane to the argument that was made. It could be that all atheists happen to be liberal. That does not mean that atheists are inherently, or necessarily, liberal. Correlation/causation and all that.

I think you are simplifying things in order to demonize groups. It's not that communist ideas don't work, it's that they are evil. It's not that the Jewish religion is wrong, it's that Jews are subhuman. By demonizing groups, one doesn't have to actually deal with the content of those groups beliefs. You label them and cognitive dissonance leads you to believe that everything they say can be safely dismissed.

> Your point about religion is valid. However, I
> was talking about Christians and, in this thread,
> about MBC specifically.

My point applies to Christians. As to the MBC, I don't know - I didn't comment on them.

> Yes, people do terrible
> acts in the name of all sorts of things (progress,
> politics, religion, the public good, etc).
> However, based on what I've read in this thread,
> the beef against MBC is that some of the members
> aren't walking the talk, Lon Solomon has a nice
> house and drives nice cars, MBC creates traffic
> problems for some and the church won't disavow the
> bible and embrace a militant homosexual agenda.
> All pretty lame for such hate-filled name calling
> and seemingly irrational vile IMO.

Militant homosexual agenda? Is this similar to the militant equal rights agenda that african americans were pursuing in the 50's and 60's? Whatever the case, I have no particular beef with the MBC.

> And again, my question remains unanswered: To what
> end?

What do you mean?

Professor Pangloss Wrote:

> > And again, my question remains unanswered: To
> what
> > end?
>
> What do you mean?


I mean, why all the hate against MBC and what is the desired result of it. This thread seemed to be undirected hate against the pastor and church and I'm trying to determine why. So far, I haven't seen an answer other than the one's I mentioned in my post above (traffic, bible-based, beef against someone who goes there, pastor doesn't live in squalor) and they don't differentiate MBC from hundreds of other churches in the region (other than size). Since you've said that you don't know about MBC, I am guessing that you wouldn't then be able to answer that question.

If I tuck my pants into my socks, the fleas can't bite my legs.

α Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> > > And again, my question remains unanswered: To
> > what
> > > end?
> >
> > What do you mean?
>
>
> I mean, why all the hate against MBC and what is
> the desired result of it. This thread seemed to
> be undirected hate against the pastor and church
> and I'm trying to determine why. So far, I
> haven't seen an answer other than the one's I
> mentioned in my post above (traffic, bible-based,
> beef against someone who goes there, pastor
> doesn't live in squalor) and they don't
> differentiate MBC from hundreds of other churches
> in the region (other than size). Since you've
> said that you don't know about MBC, I am guessing
> that you wouldn't then be able to answer that
> question.

Exactly - I don't know. I'd guess that they are targeted because they are rather successful.

MBC MUST be doing things right. Why else would so many people be so venomous? When the truth is spoken, be sure that the howls of those that Hate the truth will start scurrying like roaches with the lights on. They don't like truth and so attack anyone that dares to tell it. The real message of a real Christian service is that God loves all of us Unconditionally. That is first and foremost. WE are ALL sinners, every one of us are. Read the word of God yourself and find out. That is HIS message to all humanity. Anyone can take any phrase out of context and twist it to suit whatever they wish. Whether you folks accept it or not we live in a spiritual battlefield. There are two sides and YOU are in the middle of it. There is the side of God, truth, compassion, faith. Then there is the world. with their politically correctness, which is another way to lie to each other. It has become acceptable to B.S. each other. Satan KNOWS that he doesn't have much time so he works overtime trying to drag as many souls down with him as he can. he HATES God and therefore Humanity and his whole mission is to destroy us. Telling us that our creator is a "fairy Tale" and that we are in charge of our own destiny. Really? How good is your lives right now? We all live in fear of dying because we KNOW we have not lived the way we must live. Jesus has ALREADY taken on ALL your sins! He has done the work for us! All we have to do is tell him that we want him in our lives to guide us, direct us. he want ALL of us to be with Him forever in Heaven. Forget organized religion, That is not important at all. Follow God, His Word(bible)Not the words and ideas of man.
Try this, You will find it is the truth. I hope and pray for each and every one of you. Find the truth, the truth WILL set you free!

accusing someone that you refer to as "lucifer" of being a name caller? Hypocrisy at it's best. Pretty standard for MBC.

Whenever I see "McLean Bible Church Sucks" bumped to the top of the threads, I go, "Yessss!"

Only to be disappointed (lately) that the most recent posts haven't been worthy of engaging Professor P.

In reference to your namecalling directed at MBC members, it is apparent that YOU are the one with a hateful heart. I forgive you though, because Christ died for sinners, which is all of us. He loves you, too, and offers eternal life and forgiveness to all who recieve Him.

I have attended MBC for four years,and have never heard a word about "absolution vouchers." This was a cheap shot.
MBC shares the truth of God's word, that forgivness is available as God's free gift, to those who repent (are sorry) for their sins, and ask God to forgive them. Christ died in our place. The last thing He said on the cross was "The debt is paid." You need only believe and receive His free gift of salvation and eternal life.

Science has never proven that god even created earth or us. It is all made up to make people feel better about death. If there is a god why so many different gods? Which god is the correct god? I say prove it!

the Christian god was one of the Canaanite deities. every tribe worshipped one of the deities. the group that led the Jewish exodus wanted the worship of the other deities banned.

that is absolutely ludicrous. I know the practices of mclean bible church, the services it offers and the believes of Lon Soloman (and the other senior leadership). There is absolutely zero chance this happens at mclean bible church. It is patently false, there is no truth it in at all, I am sure of it.

Prove it Mrs C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science has never proven that god even created
> earth or us. It is all made up to make people feel
> better about death. If there is a god why so many
> different gods? Which god is the correct god? I
> say prove it!


Nor has science proven otherwise.

You can believe that the entire universe came from a thimble sized ball of energy that spontaneously exploded into everything that exists with no answer as to where that ball of energy came from or you can believe that there was intelligence and purpose behind all of this. Which is easier to explain?

You can believe that all living things on earth came from one cell that landed here from a passing comet's tail (plants, insects, mammals, amoebas, etc) or you can believe that things were created for distinct reasons as distinct beings to serve a purpose in a symbiotic world where all things seem connected. Which is easier to believe?

You can believe that there is an ultimate authority of right and wrong, moral and amoral or you can believe that it is man and society to decide that. So which is better, the laws of God or the laws of Hitler's Nazi Germany, Mao's China and Caligula's Rome?

Man has warped and destroyed almost everything he touches when he tries to do things outside of the grace of God. That includes worship and praise of God and the churches that become focused on works and things instead of worshiping God and encouraging their members to develop an individual relationship with God and live directly with Him and not through the church.

Lon had a sermon a while back on what science says are the odds of our world. I suggest that you go to their website and listen to it. If you can't find it, I would be happy to find it for you and send you the link. It might open your eyes to what science really says about God and how we can to be where we are.