Discussion:
Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source of Evil Spirits 2)
(too old to reply)
Ronald Dean
2004-04-03 16:38:13 UTC
Permalink
<snip><snip>> > >
You were the one who claimed that these books explained something. I
didn't see any logical explanations in these books. Please post the
explanations that you claim exist in these books.
_You_ made the initional claim. Now you are trying to shift the burden
of
proof to me. In this way you hope to weasel out of your burden.
Okay, I'll give it a try. But I have no expectation of changing your
mind, neither do I expect to influence you to accept the Bible or
alter your invective railing against it.
My objective is to show that the Biblical portrayal of the law
is internally logical and especially to show that my view of the law
and the two covenants are Biblically based.
1) why the law was _given_ in the first place,
Laws almost always come as the consequences of some
antisocial behavior or *evil doing*: i.e. after some activity was
carried out which resulted in harm to another person or theft
or destruction to his property.

The background for the law comes from the Old Testament.
God was not happy with man because of man's wickedness,
indeed we find this in Genesis, "The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great upon the earth and that every
imagination of the thoughts if his heart was only evil
continually".And the Lord was sorry he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Gen.
6: 5, 6 rsv). Other versions say it repented God that
he had made man....
So apparently, the adding of the law was not God's
preferance. But it was needed.

The reason the law was given, in the first place was:
because of wickedness. However, its purpose was
to guide man his dealings with God and his fellow man.
But the law had a second purpose. a - two fold
function: it had a mundane and a spiritual side.
Logic dictates that a perfect God would decree a
perfect law. The Bible confirms the perfection of
the, "the Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the
soul.... (Psa. 19: 7).

If a man lived in perfect and complete obedience to
the perfect law he himself would be perfect. But we
are imperfect! We are unable to be always in perfect
obedience to the law. Even if we did so, this would
not bring reward. The law was _not_ inaugurated to
bring reward.
This is understandable because in societies, civil laws
do not bring reward. If one does not steal, murder nor
commit perjury etc. He is not rewarded for being good
or living in obedience to civil laws.
But if you violate the same laws, there is a penalty to be
paid.
2) what the consequences of transgression are
Where the law is violated, a penalty is to be exacted.
This holds true in civilized society: assuming
the perpetrator is caught. One may rob a bank, kill a
bystander or a clerk and occasionally a criminal gets
away with it. But this is also a transgression of the
law of God; a penalty will be exacted by God, and
there is no getting away with it. We are disturbed when
this happens and no one is ever caught. Our sense of
justice demands retribution. But sometimes this doesn't
happen - not in this life.
3) why a new covenant was given where salvation
is based upon faith and the grace of God, rather
than the law.
I addressed this earlier. The reason the law was given
was _not_ because mankind was righteous, but because
of his evil nature. Man, the second party to the first
covenant broke the covenant, transgressed the laws
and lived estranged from God. IOW the law _could_
not bring salvation, Sin is a transgression of the law.
And everyone sins. But sin cannot enter into heaven.
The New Covenant took away the law for righteneous.
We no longer stand in judgement through the law.
The New Covenant brought about salvation through
Grace.
4) Why the law of God called a curse.
The law came not as an instrument to enable
man to earn his way into heaven. The law was
decreed because of unrighteneous in man. Yet
once establisned, it became our standard of
measure - a yeardstick by which we are measured.
Since the law describes a perfect man, we fall
short of the law. And the sinner is judged in
terms of the law. If we violate even one
commandment we are guilty of all.
James writes: And the person who keeps all
of the laws, but one is as guilty as the person
who has broken all of Gods laws. (James 2: 10)

If one choses to live under the law he must
live them each and every one of them. The
law a curse, because those who rely upon
the law for justification are those who chose
to live under the law are under are subject to
the condemnation that is in the law.

"For all who rely on works of the law are under
a curse; for it is written Cursed be every one
who does not abide by all things written in the
book of the law, and do them.
Now it is evident that no man is justified before
God by the law for he through faith is righteous
shall live....
The law doesn not rest on faith, for he who
does them shall live by them.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law..."
(Gal. 3: 10 - 13)

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness
to everyone who believes." (Rom. 10: 4)
"I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if
righteneous comes by the law, then Christ is
dead in vain." (Gal.2: 21)

"The law was our school master to bring us
unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come we are no longer
under a schoolmaster. (Gal.3: 24,25)
From these and other verses it is obvious that
what I have written if based upon the Bible
and from the Biblical perspective this is
internally logical and factual.
I just want you to post these explanations so
that we can examine them to > see if they are
logical or not.
Fine, I hope you read read everything and respond
honestly and forthright rather than try to make a
caricature of it.

Ron
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-04 00:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip><snip>> > >
You were the one who claimed that these books explained something.
I
Post by Ronald Dean
didn't see any logical explanations in these books. Please post the
explanations that you claim exist in these books.
_You_ made the initional claim. Now you are trying to shift the burden
of
proof to me. In this way you hope to weasel out of your burden.
Okay, I'll give it a try. But I have no expectation of changing your
mind, neither do I expect to influence you to accept the Bible or
alter your invective railing against it.
My objective is to show that the Biblical portrayal of the law
is internally logical and especially to show that my view of the law
and the two covenants are Biblically based.
1) why the law was _given_ in the first place,
Laws almost always come as the consequences of some
antisocial behavior or *evil doing*: i.e. after some activity was
carried out which resulted in harm to another person or theft
or destruction to his property.
The background for the law comes from the Old Testament.
God was not happy with man because of man's wickedness,
indeed we find this in Genesis, "The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great upon the earth and that every
imagination of the thoughts if his heart was only evil
continually".And the Lord was sorry he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Gen.
6: 5, 6 rsv). Other versions say it repented God that
he had made man....
So apparently, the adding of the law was not God's
preferance. But it was needed.
because of wickedness. However, its purpose was
to guide man his dealings with God and his fellow man.
But the law had a second purpose. a - two fold
function: it had a mundane and a spiritual side.
Logic dictates that a perfect God would decree a
perfect law. The Bible confirms the perfection of
the, "the Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the
soul.... (Psa. 19: 7).
If a man lived in perfect and complete obedience to
the perfect law he himself would be perfect.
<snip>

So now it appears that you are saying that the OT law was sent by God and
perfect. So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
these laws are quite evil.
Ronald Dean
2004-04-04 08:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip><snip>> > >
You were the one who claimed that these books explained something.
I
Post by Ronald Dean
didn't see any logical explanations in these books. Please post the
explanations that you claim exist in these books.
_You_ made the initional claim. Now you are trying to shift the burden
of
proof to me. In this way you hope to weasel out of your burden.
Okay, I'll give it a try. But I have no expectation of changing your
mind, neither do I expect to influence you to accept the Bible or
alter your invective railing against it.
My objective is to show that the Biblical portrayal of the law
is internally logical and especially to show that my view of the law
and the two covenants are Biblically based.
1) why the law was _given_ in the first place,
Laws almost always come as the consequences of some
antisocial behavior or *evil doing*: i.e. after some activity was
carried out which resulted in harm to another person or theft
or destruction to his property.
The background for the law comes from the Old Testament.
God was not happy with man because of man's wickedness,
indeed we find this in Genesis, "The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great upon the earth and that every
imagination of the thoughts if his heart was only evil
continually".And the Lord was sorry he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Gen.
6: 5, 6 rsv). Other versions say it repented God that
he had made man....
So apparently, the adding of the law was not God's
preferance. But it was needed.
because of wickedness. However, its purpose was
to guide man his dealings with God and his fellow man.
But the law had a second purpose. a - two fold
function: it had a mundane and a spiritual side.
Logic dictates that a perfect God would decree a
perfect law. The Bible confirms the perfection of
the, "the Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the
soul.... (Psa. 19: 7).
If a man lived in perfect and complete obedience to
the perfect law he himself would be perfect.
<snip>
So now it appears that you are saying that the OT law was sent by God and
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.

Earlier you listed 4 points where you challenged me
to provide explanations. You wanted me "to post
these explanations so that (you) can_examine_ them
to see if they are logical or not." I answered your
challenge, but obviously you were unable to find
fault with the internal logic or my intrepretation.
Obviously, you found them to be as I stated;
internally logical and my intrepretation rational.
You failled to live up to the challenge yourself,
so you forfeited this debate.
So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
Post by Ronald Dean
these laws are quite evil.
Basically the Old Testament laws are the 10 commandments.
What is so evil about these? These are the law the rest
is the prophets. All of which were succeeded by the
New Covenant in the NewTestament.

Ron
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-04 13:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip><snip>> > >
You were the one who claimed that these books explained something.
I
Post by Ronald Dean
didn't see any logical explanations in these books. Please post
the
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
explanations that you claim exist in these books.
_You_ made the initional claim. Now you are trying to shift the
burden
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
of
proof to me. In this way you hope to weasel out of your burden.
Okay, I'll give it a try. But I have no expectation of changing your
mind, neither do I expect to influence you to accept the Bible or
alter your invective railing against it.
My objective is to show that the Biblical portrayal of the law
is internally logical and especially to show that my view of the law
and the two covenants are Biblically based.
1) why the law was _given_ in the first place,
Laws almost always come as the consequences of some
antisocial behavior or *evil doing*: i.e. after some activity was
carried out which resulted in harm to another person or theft
or destruction to his property.
The background for the law comes from the Old Testament.
God was not happy with man because of man's wickedness,
indeed we find this in Genesis, "The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great upon the earth and that every
imagination of the thoughts if his heart was only evil
continually".And the Lord was sorry he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Gen.
6: 5, 6 rsv). Other versions say it repented God that
he had made man....
So apparently, the adding of the law was not God's
preferance. But it was needed.
because of wickedness. However, its purpose was
to guide man his dealings with God and his fellow man.
But the law had a second purpose. a - two fold
function: it had a mundane and a spiritual side.
Logic dictates that a perfect God would decree a
perfect law. The Bible confirms the perfection of
the, "the Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the
soul.... (Psa. 19: 7).
If a man lived in perfect and complete obedience to
the perfect law he himself would be perfect.
<snip>
So now it appears that you are saying that the OT law was sent by God and
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again. We already discussed this. I showed that
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God and he wrote down
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to argue that
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that either Moses or
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have refused to do
this. You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon this
line of argument.
Earlier you listed 4 points where you challenged me
to provide explanations. You wanted me "to post
these explanations so that (you) can_examine_ them
to see if they are logical or not." I answered your
challenge, but obviously you were unable to find
fault with the internal logic or my intrepretation.
Obviously, you found them to be as I stated;
internally logical and my intrepretation rational.
You failled to live up to the challenge yourself,
so you forfeited this debate.
A contradiction is a logical flaw. I pointed out this contradiction.
So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
Post by Ronald Dean
these laws are quite evil.
Basically the Old Testament laws are the 10 commandments.
That's not what the Bible says.
What is so evil about these? These are the law the rest
is the prophets. All of which were succeeded by the
New Covenant in the NewTestament.
I don't know about you but I think it is evil to punish the innocent
grandsons of sinners as God promises to do in the so called Ten
Commandments. Don't you see something evil in that?
Ronald Dean
2004-04-05 06:29:37 UTC
Permalink
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <***@Here.com> wrote in message news:y9qdnd7RCaazl-3dRVn-***@adelphia.com...
<snip>
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip><snip>> > >
You were the one who claimed that these books explained
something.
Post by Ronald Dean
I
Post by Ronald Dean
didn't see any logical explanations in these books. Please post
the
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
explanations that you claim exist in these books.
_You_ made the initional claim. Now you are trying to shift the
burden
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
of
proof to me. In this way you hope to weasel out of your burden.
Okay, I'll give it a try. But I have no expectation of changing your
mind, neither do I expect to influence you to accept the Bible or
alter your invective railing against it.
My objective is to show that the Biblical portrayal of the law
is internally logical and especially to show that my view of the law
and the two covenants are Biblically based.
1) why the law was _given_ in the first place,
Laws almost always come as the consequences of some
antisocial behavior or *evil doing*: i.e. after some activity was
carried out which resulted in harm to another person or theft
or destruction to his property.
The background for the law comes from the Old Testament.
God was not happy with man because of man's wickedness,
indeed we find this in Genesis, "The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great upon the earth and that every
imagination of the thoughts if his heart was only evil
continually".And the Lord was sorry he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Gen.
6: 5, 6 rsv). Other versions say it repented God that
he had made man....
So apparently, the adding of the law was not God's
preferance. But it was needed.
because of wickedness. However, its purpose was
to guide man his dealings with God and his fellow man.
But the law had a second purpose. a - two fold
function: it had a mundane and a spiritual side.
Logic dictates that a perfect God would decree a
perfect law. The Bible confirms the perfection of
the, "the Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the
soul.... (Psa. 19: 7).
If a man lived in perfect and complete obedience to
the perfect law he himself would be perfect.
<snip>
So now it appears that you are saying that the OT law was sent by God
and
Post by Ronald Dean
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God and he wrote down
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to argue that
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that either Moses or
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have refused to do
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.

You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon this
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.

But I do know from my studies that the O.T. it has
been made obsolete by the New Testament. And
Christ is the end of the law for righteneous for Christians.
Paul writes, that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. And
after that faith is come we are no longer under a school-
master". (Gal. 3: 24)

What could be clearer?
Earlier you listed 4 points where you challenged me
to provide explanations. You wanted me "to post
these explanations so that (you) can_examine_ them
to see if they are logical or not." I answered your
challenge, but obviously you were unable to find
fault with the internal logic or my intrepretation.
Obviously, you found them to be as I stated;
internally logical and my intrepretation rational.
You failled to live up to the challenge yourself,
so you forfeited this debate.
A contradiction is a logical flaw. I pointed out this contradiction.
If there is a contradiction it is with my opinion. I'm no
authority on the O.T.. So I can be wrong as to how Moses
comunicated with God. I do not know. But it was
fragmented, however it was.
So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
Post by Ronald Dean
these laws are quite evil.
Basically the Old Testament laws are the 10 commandments.
That's not what the Bible says.
You're beating a dead horse. The OT has vanished away
as far as Christianity is concerned. You can't face facts!
"I do not frustrate the Grace of God for if righteneous comes
by the law Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)
What is so evil about these? These are the law the rest
is the prophets. All of which were succeeded by the
New Covenant in the NewTestament.
I don't know about you but I think it is evil to punish the innocent
grandsons of sinners as God promises to do in the so called Ten
Commandments. Don't you see something evil in that?
It's old testiment!
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-06 01:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip>
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip><snip>> > >
You were the one who claimed that these books explained
something.
Post by Ronald Dean
I
Post by Ronald Dean
didn't see any logical explanations in these books. Please
post
the
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
explanations that you claim exist in these books.
_You_ made the initional claim. Now you are trying to shift the
burden
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
of
proof to me. In this way you hope to weasel out of your burden.
Okay, I'll give it a try. But I have no expectation of changing your
mind, neither do I expect to influence you to accept the Bible or
alter your invective railing against it.
My objective is to show that the Biblical portrayal of the law
is internally logical and especially to show that my view of the law
and the two covenants are Biblically based.
1) why the law was _given_ in the first place,
Laws almost always come as the consequences of some
antisocial behavior or *evil doing*: i.e. after some activity was
carried out which resulted in harm to another person or theft
or destruction to his property.
The background for the law comes from the Old Testament.
God was not happy with man because of man's wickedness,
indeed we find this in Genesis, "The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great upon the earth and that every
imagination of the thoughts if his heart was only evil
continually".And the Lord was sorry he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Gen.
6: 5, 6 rsv). Other versions say it repented God that
he had made man....
So apparently, the adding of the law was not God's
preferance. But it was needed.
because of wickedness. However, its purpose was
to guide man his dealings with God and his fellow man.
But the law had a second purpose. a - two fold
function: it had a mundane and a spiritual side.
Logic dictates that a perfect God would decree a
perfect law. The Bible confirms the perfection of
the, "the Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the
soul.... (Psa. 19: 7).
If a man lived in perfect and complete obedience to
the perfect law he himself would be perfect.
<snip>
So now it appears that you are saying that the OT law was sent by God
and
Post by Ronald Dean
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
down
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to argue that
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that either
Moses
Post by Ronald Dean
or
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have refused to do
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon this
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that Mosaic law is
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied. So you either need
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these errors came to
be written in the Bible.
Post by Ronald Dean
But I do know from my studies that the O.T. it has
been made obsolete by the New Testament. And
Christ is the end of the law for righteneous for Christians.
Paul writes, that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. And
after that faith is come we are no longer under a school-
master". (Gal. 3: 24)
This is a red herring. Whether the law still applies or not does not change
the authorship of the Mosaic laws. So why don't you tell us who is the
actual author of the Mosaic laws?
Post by Ronald Dean
What could be clearer?
Earlier you listed 4 points where you challenged me
to provide explanations. You wanted me "to post
these explanations so that (you) can_examine_ them
to see if they are logical or not." I answered your
challenge, but obviously you were unable to find
fault with the internal logic or my intrepretation.
Obviously, you found them to be as I stated;
internally logical and my intrepretation rational.
You failled to live up to the challenge yourself,
so you forfeited this debate.
A contradiction is a logical flaw. I pointed out this contradiction.
If there is a contradiction it is with my opinion. I'm no
authority on the O.T.. So I can be wrong as to how Moses
comunicated with God. I do not know. But it was
fragmented, however it was.
You seem to be waffling on this point. Sometimes you say the Mosaic laws
are incorrect, now you say they are fragmented. Previously you said that
Moses got carried away. And yet you still refuse to admit that someone
lied.
Post by Ronald Dean
So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
Post by Ronald Dean
these laws are quite evil.
Basically the Old Testament laws are the 10 commandments.
That's not what the Bible says.
You're beating a dead horse. The OT has vanished away
as far as Christianity is concerned. You can't face facts!
Then why does every Christian sect that I know of still include the Old
Testament in their Bible?
Post by Ronald Dean
"I do not frustrate the Grace of God for if righteneous comes
by the law Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)
What is so evil about these? These are the law the rest
is the prophets. All of which were succeeded by the
New Covenant in the NewTestament.
I don't know about you but I think it is evil to punish the innocent
grandsons of sinners as God promises to do in the so called Ten
Commandments. Don't you see something evil in that?
It's old testiment!
The Old Testament is still considered a divinely inspired part of the Bible
by every Christian sect that I know of.
Ronald Dean
2004-04-06 01:53:40 UTC
Permalink
<snip> God
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
and
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
down
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to argue that
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that either
Moses
Post by Ronald Dean
or
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have refused to
do
Post by Ronald Dean
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon this
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that Mosaic law is
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied. So you either need
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these errors came to
be written in the Bible.
I am very hesitant to *down* the Jewish religion by calling the
central figure of Judaism a liar.
It doesn't matter, since it is obsolete as far a Christanity is concerned.
Any contract which has been fulfilled is no longer binding upon
the parties. So it is with the first contract. So why should the terms
of such a contract still be a holdover?
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
But I do know from my studies that the O.T. it has
been made obsolete by the New Testament. And
Christ is the end of the law for righteneous for Christians.
Paul writes, that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. And
after that faith is come we are no longer under a school-
master". (Gal. 3: 24)
This is a red herring.
It's quoted from the New Testament!
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Whether the law still applies or not does not change the
authorship of the Mosaic laws. So why don't you tell us who is the
actual author of the Mosaic laws?
Tell me why it matters, since the OT is obsolete? >
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
What could be clearer?
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Earlier you listed 4 points where you challenged me
to provide explanations. You wanted me "to post
these explanations so that (you) can_examine_ them
to see if they are logical or not." I answered your
challenge, but obviously you were unable to find
fault with the internal logic or my intrepretation.
Obviously, you found them to be as I stated;
internally logical and my intrepretation rational.
You failled to live up to the challenge yourself,
so you forfeited this debate.
A contradiction is a logical flaw. I pointed out this contradiction.
If there is a contradiction it is with my opinion. I'm no
authority on the O.T.. So I can be wrong as to how Moses
comunicated with God. I do not know. But it was
fragmented, however it was.
You seem to be waffling on this point.
No, I really don't know and don't care. Why is it so important to you?
Sometimes you say the Mosaic laws
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
are incorrect, now you say they are fragmented. Previously you said that
Moses got carried away. And yet you still refuse to admit that someone
lied.
It's immaterial!! Why can't you simply accept the fact that the old covenant
containing the law, priest, animal sacrifices, etc has been fulfilled
and no longer in effect. So it doesn't matter who wrote the Mosaic laws.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
Post by Ronald Dean
these laws are quite evil.
Basically the Old Testament laws are the 10 commandments.
That's not what the Bible says.
You're beating a dead horse. The OT has vanished away
as far as Christianity is concerned. You can't face facts!
Then why does every Christian sect that I know of still include the Old
Testament in their Bible?
Most of them consider themselves a New Testament Church.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
"I do not frustrate the Grace of God for if righteneous comes
by the law Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
What is so evil about these? These are the law the rest
is the prophets. All of which were succeeded by the
New Covenant in the NewTestament.
I don't know about you but I think it is evil to punish the innocent
grandsons of sinners as God promises to do in the so called Ten
Commandments. Don't you see something evil in that?
It's old testiment!
The Old Testament is still considered a divinely inspired part of the Bible
by every Christian sect that I know of.
There are varrying degrees to which Christians claim to be under
the Old Testiment laws and it's laws. Some think it is still in force,
others believe it has been set aside. But unfortunately, many
Christians are really weak in regards to their own doctrine. To
a considerable extent, you are really doing God's work by pointing out
the reasons why God was sorry (and repented) that he created
man. But he gave us a second chance through Christ. So he
may be using you in spite of yourself. You definately have a
*calling* and you have passion.

Ron
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-06 06:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip> God
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
and
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God and he
down
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to argue
that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that either
Moses
Post by Ronald Dean
or
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have refused to
do
Post by Ronald Dean
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon this
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that Mosaic law is
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied. So you either
need
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these errors came to
be written in the Bible.
I am very hesitant to *down* the Jewish religion by calling the
central figure of Judaism a liar.
It doesn't matter, since it is obsolete as far a Christanity is concerned.
Any contract which has been fulfilled is no longer binding upon
the parties. So it is with the first contract. So why should the terms
of such a contract still be a holdover?
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
But I do know from my studies that the O.T. it has
been made obsolete by the New Testament. And
Christ is the end of the law for righteneous for Christians.
Paul writes, that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. And
after that faith is come we are no longer under a school-
master". (Gal. 3: 24)
This is a red herring.
It's quoted from the New Testament!
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Whether the law still applies or not does not change the
authorship of the Mosaic laws. So why don't you tell us who is the
actual author of the Mosaic laws?
Tell me why it matters, since the OT is obsolete? >
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
What could be clearer?
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Earlier you listed 4 points where you challenged me
to provide explanations. You wanted me "to post
these explanations so that (you) can_examine_ them
to see if they are logical or not." I answered your
challenge, but obviously you were unable to find
fault with the internal logic or my intrepretation.
Obviously, you found them to be as I stated;
internally logical and my intrepretation rational.
You failled to live up to the challenge yourself,
so you forfeited this debate.
A contradiction is a logical flaw. I pointed out this
contradiction.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
If there is a contradiction it is with my opinion. I'm no
authority on the O.T.. So I can be wrong as to how Moses
comunicated with God. I do not know. But it was
fragmented, however it was.
You seem to be waffling on this point.
No, I really don't know and don't care. Why is it so important to you?
Sometimes you say the Mosaic laws
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
are incorrect, now you say they are fragmented. Previously you said that
Moses got carried away. And yet you still refuse to admit that someone
lied.
It's immaterial!! Why can't you simply accept the fact that the old covenant
containing the law, priest, animal sacrifices, etc has been fulfilled
and no longer in effect. So it doesn't matter who wrote the Mosaic laws.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
Post by Ronald Dean
these laws are quite evil.
Basically the Old Testament laws are the 10 commandments.
That's not what the Bible says.
You're beating a dead horse. The OT has vanished away
as far as Christianity is concerned. You can't face facts!
Then why does every Christian sect that I know of still include the Old
Testament in their Bible?
Most of them consider themselves a New Testament Church.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
"I do not frustrate the Grace of God for if righteneous comes
by the law Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
What is so evil about these? These are the law the rest
is the prophets. All of which were succeeded by the
New Covenant in the NewTestament.
I don't know about you but I think it is evil to punish the innocent
grandsons of sinners as God promises to do in the so called Ten
Commandments. Don't you see something evil in that?
It's old testiment!
The Old Testament is still considered a divinely inspired part of the
Bible
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
by every Christian sect that I know of.
There are varrying degrees to which Christians claim to be under
the Old Testiment laws and it's laws. Some think it is still in force,
others believe it has been set aside. But unfortunately, many
Christians are really weak in regards to their own doctrine. To
a considerable extent, you are really doing God's work by pointing out
the reasons why God was sorry (and repented) that he created
man. But he gave us a second chance through Christ. So he
may be using you in spite of yourself. You definately have a
*calling* and you have passion.
I don't see the point in arguing with you anymore about this. You claim
that Mosaic law, as it is written in the OT, is erroneous and yet you refuse
to explain how it became erroneous. Simply claiming that it is no longer in
effect does not explain how it became erroneous. If you want to continue
this debate then you should explain how the OT Mosaic laws were written down
erroneously.
B. Kildow
2004-04-06 23:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip> God
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
and
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God and he
down
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to argue
that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that either
Moses
Post by Ronald Dean
or
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have refused to
do
Post by Ronald Dean
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon this
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that Mosaic law is
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied. So you either
need
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these errors came to
be written in the Bible.
I am very hesitant to *down* the Jewish religion by calling the
central figure of Judaism a liar.
It doesn't matter, since it is obsolete as far a Christanity is concerned.
Any contract which has been fulfilled is no longer binding upon
the parties. So it is with the first contract. So why should the terms
of such a contract still be a holdover?
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
But I do know from my studies that the O.T. it has
been made obsolete by the New Testament. And
Christ is the end of the law for righteneous for Christians.
Paul writes, that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. And
after that faith is come we are no longer under a school-
master". (Gal. 3: 24)
This is a red herring.
It's quoted from the New Testament!
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Whether the law still applies or not does not change the
authorship of the Mosaic laws. So why don't you tell us who is the
actual author of the Mosaic laws?
Tell me why it matters, since the OT is obsolete? >
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
What could be clearer?
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Earlier you listed 4 points where you challenged me
to provide explanations. You wanted me "to post
these explanations so that (you) can_examine_ them
to see if they are logical or not." I answered your
challenge, but obviously you were unable to find
fault with the internal logic or my intrepretation.
Obviously, you found them to be as I stated;
internally logical and my intrepretation rational.
You failled to live up to the challenge yourself,
so you forfeited this debate.
A contradiction is a logical flaw. I pointed out this contradiction.
If there is a contradiction it is with my opinion. I'm no
authority on the O.T.. So I can be wrong as to how Moses
comunicated with God. I do not know. But it was
fragmented, however it was.
You seem to be waffling on this point.
No, I really don't know and don't care. Why is it so important to you?
Sometimes you say the Mosaic laws
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
are incorrect, now you say they are fragmented. Previously you said that
Moses got carried away. And yet you still refuse to admit that someone
lied.
It's immaterial!! Why can't you simply accept the fact that the old covenant
containing the law, priest, animal sacrifices, etc has been fulfilled
and no longer in effect. So it doesn't matter who wrote the Mosaic laws.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
Post by Ronald Dean
these laws are quite evil.
Basically the Old Testament laws are the 10 commandments.
That's not what the Bible says.
You're beating a dead horse. The OT has vanished away
as far as Christianity is concerned. You can't face facts!
Then why does every Christian sect that I know of still include the Old
Testament in their Bible?
Most of them consider themselves a New Testament Church.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
"I do not frustrate the Grace of God for if righteneous comes
by the law Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
What is so evil about these? These are the law the rest
is the prophets. All of which were succeeded by the
New Covenant in the NewTestament.
I don't know about you but I think it is evil to punish the innocent
grandsons of sinners as God promises to do in the so called Ten
Commandments. Don't you see something evil in that?
It's old testiment!
The Old Testament is still considered a divinely inspired part of the
Bible
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
by every Christian sect that I know of.
There are varrying degrees to which Christians claim to be under
the Old Testiment laws and it's laws. Some think it is still in force,
others believe it has been set aside. But unfortunately, many
Christians are really weak in regards to their own doctrine. To
a considerable extent, you are really doing God's work by pointing out
the reasons why God was sorry (and repented) that he created
man. But he gave us a second chance through Christ. So he
may be using you in spite of yourself. You definately have a
*calling* and you have passion.
Ron
My only question is where in the Bible are you finding Jesus saying that
the "old Covenant" has been fulfilled and that the Mosaic laws no longer
need be followed? Not what Paul said umpty years after Jesus died and
Paul found that the Jews were not joining his religion in droves and
decided to change the dietary and other laws to make them more appealing
to the Gentiles; where exactly does your lord say that?

BK
AA#1992
Ronald Dean
2004-04-07 23:16:28 UTC
Permalink
<snip> God
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
and
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God and he
down
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to argue
that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that either
Moses
Post by Ronald Dean
or
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have refused
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
do
Post by Ronald Dean
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon this
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that Mosaic law
is
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied. So you either
need
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these errors came
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
be written in the Bible.
I am very hesitant to *down* the Jewish religion by calling the
central figure of Judaism a liar But, it doesn't matter, since it is
obsolete as far a Christanity is concerned.
Any contract which has been fulfilled is no longer binding upon
the parties. So it is with the first contract. So why should the terms
of such a contract still be a holdover?
The law cannot bring salvation. And salvation is the goal of
Christians.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
But I do know from my studies that the O.T. it has
been made obsolete by the New Testament. And
Christ is the end of the law for righteneous for Christians.
Paul writes, that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. And
after that faith is come we are no longer under a school-
master". (Gal. 3: 24)
This is a red herring.
If you can prove this statement, then I will have to go back
and reevaluate my position. Prove this to me, Please. I'll try
to keep an open mind!
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Whether the law still applies or not does not change the
authorship of the Mosaic laws. So why don't you tell us who is the
actual author of the Mosaic laws?
Tell me why it matters, since the OT is obsolete?
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
What could be clearer?
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Earlier you listed 4 points where you challenged me
to provide explanations. You wanted me "to post
these explanations so that (you) can_examine_ them
to see if they are logical or not." I answered your
challenge, but obviously you were unable to find
fault with the internal logic or my intrepretation.
Obviously, you found them to be as I stated;
internally logical and my intrepretation rational.
You failled to live up to the challenge yourself,
so you forfeited this debate.
A contradiction is a logical flaw. I pointed out this contradiction.
If there is a contradiction it is with my opinion. I'm no
authority on the O.T.. So I can be wrong as to how Moses
comunicated with God. I do not know. But it was
fragmented, however it was.
You seem to be waffling on this point.
No, I don't think so. I said from the beginning of our discussion that
that the new covenant was a more sure way of God chose of revealing
his will to man. There were various and sundry methods used in the
OT. none as effective as the New Covenant, because of the man's
inabilities. But in any case the Old Covenant containing laws was
ineffective and superceeded by the New. Why is it so important to you?
Sometimes you say the Mosaic laws
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
are incorrect, now you say they are fragmented. Previously you said that
Moses got carried away. And yet you still refuse to admit that someone
lied.
It's immaterial!! Why can't you simply accept the fact that the old
covenant
containing the law, priest, animal sacrifices, etc has been fulfilled
and no longer in effect. So it doesn't matter who wrote the Mosaic laws.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
Post by Ronald Dean
these laws are quite evil.
Basically the Old Testament laws are the 10 commandments.
That's not what the Bible says.
You're beating a dead horse. The OT has vanished away
as far as Christianity is concerned. You can't face facts!
Then why does every Christian sect that I know of still include the Old
Testament in their Bible?
Most of these *Christian sects* consider themselves a New Testament
Church. The Old testiment gives background andcontinunity with
the old.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
"I do not frustrate the Grace of God for if righteneous comes
by the law Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
What is so evil about these? These are the law the rest
is the prophets. All of which were succeeded by the
New Covenant in the NewTestament.
I don't know about you but I think it is evil to punish the innocent
grandsons of sinners as God promises to do in the so called Ten
Commandments. Don't you see something evil in that?
It's old testiment!
The Old Testament is still considered a divinely inspired part of the
Bible by every Christian sect that I know of.
There are varrying degrees to which Christians claim to be under
the Old Testiment and it's laws. Some think it is still in force,
others believe it has been set aside. But unfortunately, many
Christians are really weak in regards to their own doctrine. To
a considerable extent, you are really doing God's work by
pointing out the reasons why God was sorry (and repented)
that he created man.
But he gave us a second chance through Christ. So he
may be using you in spite of yourself. You definately have a
*calling* and you have passion. It's also possible that one
of Christ purpose was to *set the record straight*.



Ron
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-08 14:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip> God
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
and
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God and he
down
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to argue
that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that either
Moses
Post by Ronald Dean
or
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have refused
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
do
Post by Ronald Dean
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon this
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that Mosaic law
is
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied. So you either
need
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these errors came
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
be written in the Bible.
I am very hesitant to *down* the Jewish religion by calling the
central figure of Judaism a liar But, it doesn't matter, since it is
obsolete as far a Christanity is concerned.
Any contract which has been fulfilled is no longer binding upon
the parties. So it is with the first contract. So why should the terms
of such a contract still be a holdover?
The law cannot bring salvation. And salvation is the goal of
Christians.
Determining the author of the Mosaic laws doesn't depend on whether the law
is still in effect or not. Don't you agree? If you think that the Old
Testament does not accurately reflect the words of God, even though it says
it does, then you need to explain how you came to your conclusion.

I am not going to respond to the rest of your post until I get an answer to
this question.
Ronald Dean
2004-04-09 23:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip> God
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
and
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God and he
down
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to argue
that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that either
Moses
Post by Ronald Dean
or
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have refused
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
do
Post by Ronald Dean
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon this
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that Mosaic law
is
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied. So you either
need
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these errors came
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
be written in the Bible.
I am very hesitant to *down* the Jewish religion by calling the
central figure of Judaism a liar But, it doesn't matter, since it is
obsolete as far a Christanity is concerned.
Any contract which has been fulfilled is no longer binding upon
the parties. So it is with the first contract. So why should the terms
of such a contract still be a holdover?
The law cannot bring salvation. And salvation is the goal of
Christians.
Determining the author of the Mosaic laws doesn't depend on whether the
law is still in effect or not.
Moses is the author of Genesis which contains the 10 commandments
(the Mosaic laws).
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Don't you agree?
Yes, whether or not the Old Testament is superceded by the New does
not impact upon who wrote the Mosiac laws. But this is immaterial
from a Christian's prospective.
If you think that the Old
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Testament does not accurately reflect the words of God, even though it
says it does, then you need to explain how you came to your conclusion.
My conclusion is based on the fact that nothing from the OT is
required in order to obtain one's own salvation. The Christian
Church of today (New Testament Churches) has no modern prophets,
no new and additional revelations, no Aronic Priest (after the order
of Aaron - Heb. 5:4), no animal sacrifices and no dependance upon
the OT law for salvation etc..
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
I am not going to respond to the rest of your post until I get an answer
to this question.
I have answered your question. It goes against the gist of your anti-
Christian crusade, therefore, you do not want to accept my answer.
You have not discounted the New Testament, where it states
unequivocally that the old law, prophets, priest animal sacrifices etc
have been done away with. Why do you suppose there is a New
Testiment if there was nothing wrong with the old covenant. The
Old was flawed therefore room was made for a New Covenant.
(Heb.8: 7 - 13)

Ron
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-11 01:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip> God
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
and
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God and he
down
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to
argue
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that
either
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Moses
Post by Ronald Dean
or
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have
refused
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
do
Post by Ronald Dean
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon
this
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that Mosaic
law
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
is
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied. So you
either
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
need
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these errors
came
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
be written in the Bible.
I am very hesitant to *down* the Jewish religion by calling the
central figure of Judaism a liar But, it doesn't matter, since it is
obsolete as far a Christanity is concerned.
Any contract which has been fulfilled is no longer binding upon
the parties. So it is with the first contract. So why should the terms
of such a contract still be a holdover?
The law cannot bring salvation. And salvation is the goal of
Christians.
Determining the author of the Mosaic laws doesn't depend on whether the
law is still in effect or not.
Moses is the author of Genesis which contains the 10 commandments
(the Mosaic laws).
Actually the Ten Commandments are in Exodus and most Biblical scholars
believe that Moses did not write any of the Bible. But if someone believes
that Moses wrote the Mosaic laws into the Bible, and also believes that they
are not the accurate words of God as the Bible says they are, doesn't it
logically follow that they think that Moses lied about these laws?
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Don't you agree?
Yes, whether or not the Old Testament is superceded by the New does
not impact upon who wrote the Mosaic laws. But this is immaterial
from a Christian's prospective.
If you think that the Old
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Testament does not accurately reflect the words of God, even though it
says it does, then you need to explain how you came to your conclusion.
My conclusion is based on the fact that nothing from the OT is
required in order to obtain one's own salvation. The Christian
Church of today (New Testament Churches) has no modern prophets,
no new and additional revelations, no Aronic Priest (after the order
of Aaron - Heb. 5:4), no animal sacrifices and no dependance upon
the OT law for salvation etc..
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
I am not going to respond to the rest of your post until I get an answer
to this question.
I have answered your question. It goes against the gist of your anti-
Christian crusade, therefore, you do not want to accept my answer.
You have not discounted the New Testament, where it states
unequivocally that the old law, prophets, priest animal sacrifices etc
have been done away with. Why do you suppose there is a New
Testiment if there was nothing wrong with the old covenant. The
Old was flawed therefore room was made for a New Covenant.
(Heb.8: 7 - 13)
The Old Testament says that the Mosaic laws are the accurate words of God.
If you think that they are not accurate then you need to explain why the Bib
le says they are the accurate words of God. Your refusal to admit to the
logical results of your argument (that Moses lied) is absurd.
Ronald Dean
2004-04-14 03:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip> God
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
and
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God
and
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
he
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
down
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to
argue
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that
either
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Moses
Post by Ronald Dean
or
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have
refused
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
do
Post by Ronald Dean
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon
this
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that Mosaic
law
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
is
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied. So you
either
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
need
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these errors
came
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
be written in the Bible.
I am very hesitant to *down* the Jewish religion by calling the
central figure of Judaism a liar But, it doesn't matter, since it is
obsolete as far a Christanity is concerned.
Any contract which has been fulfilled is no longer binding upon
the parties. So it is with the first contract. So why should the
terms
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
of such a contract still be a holdover?
The law cannot bring salvation. And salvation is the goal of
Christians.
Determining the author of the Mosaic laws doesn't depend on whether the
law is still in effect or not.
Moses is the author of Genesis which contains the 10 commandments
(the Mosaic laws).
Actually the Ten Commandments are in Exodus and most Biblical scholars
believe that Moses did not write any of the Bible. But if someone believes
that Moses wrote the Mosaic laws into the Bible, and also believes that they
are not the accurate words of God as the Bible says they are, doesn't it
logically follow that they think that Moses lied about these laws?
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Don't you agree?
Yes, whether or not the Old Testament is superceded by the New does
not impact upon who wrote the Mosaic laws. But this is immaterial
from a Christian's prospective.
If you think that the Old
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Testament does not accurately reflect the words of God, even though it
says it does, then you need to explain how you came to your conclusion.
My conclusion is based on the fact that nothing from the OT is
required in order to obtain one's own salvation. The Christian
Church of today (New Testament Churches) has no modern prophets,
no new and additional revelations, no Aronic Priest (after the order
of Aaron - Heb. 5:4), no animal sacrifices and no dependance upon
the OT law for salvation etc..
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
I am not going to respond to the rest of your post until I get an answer
to this question.
I have answered your question. It goes against the gist of your anti-
Christian crusade, therefore, you do not want to accept my answer.
You have not discounted the New Testament, where it states
unequivocally that the old law, prophets, priest animal sacrifices etc
have been done away with. Why do you suppose there is a New
Testiment if there was nothing wrong with the old covenant. The
Old was flawed therefore room was made for a New Covenant.
(Heb.8: 7 - 13)
The Old Testament says that the Mosaic laws are the accurate words of God.
If you think that they are not accurate then you need to explain why the Bib
le says they are the accurate words of God. Your refusal to admit to the
logical results of your argument (that Moses lied) is absurd.
As I have already confessed, I'm no expert on the Old Testament.
So, why would you insist upon me making a declaration for which
I am clearly unqualified. My opinion about the integrity of the
revelations received by Moses may very well be wrong. So
based upon my opinion, I cannot in good conscience call
Moses a liar.
I don't know why you have this obssession. Could it be a
diversion: an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion that
the Old Testament has been superceded by the New as it
relates to the Christian?

Ron
the n escape for you to
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-14 14:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip> God
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
and
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God
and
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
he
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
down
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to
argue
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that
either
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Moses
Post by Ronald Dean
or
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have
refused
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
do
Post by Ronald Dean
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to
abandon
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
this
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that
Mosaic
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
law
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
is
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied. So you
either
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
need
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these
errors
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
came
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
be written in the Bible.
I am very hesitant to *down* the Jewish religion by calling the
central figure of Judaism a liar But, it doesn't matter, since it
is
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
obsolete as far a Christanity is concerned.
Any contract which has been fulfilled is no longer binding upon
the parties. So it is with the first contract. So why should the
terms
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
of such a contract still be a holdover?
The law cannot bring salvation. And salvation is the goal of
Christians.
Determining the author of the Mosaic laws doesn't depend on whether
the
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
law is still in effect or not.
Moses is the author of Genesis which contains the 10 commandments
(the Mosaic laws).
Actually the Ten Commandments are in Exodus and most Biblical scholars
believe that Moses did not write any of the Bible. But if someone
believes
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
that Moses wrote the Mosaic laws into the Bible, and also believes that
they
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
are not the accurate words of God as the Bible says they are, doesn't it
logically follow that they think that Moses lied about these laws?
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Don't you agree?
Yes, whether or not the Old Testament is superceded by the New does
not impact upon who wrote the Mosaic laws. But this is immaterial
from a Christian's prospective.
If you think that the Old
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Testament does not accurately reflect the words of God, even though it
says it does, then you need to explain how you came to your
conclusion.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
My conclusion is based on the fact that nothing from the OT is
required in order to obtain one's own salvation. The Christian
Church of today (New Testament Churches) has no modern prophets,
no new and additional revelations, no Aronic Priest (after the order
of Aaron - Heb. 5:4), no animal sacrifices and no dependance upon
the OT law for salvation etc..
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
I am not going to respond to the rest of your post until I get an
answer
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
to this question.
I have answered your question. It goes against the gist of your anti-
Christian crusade, therefore, you do not want to accept my answer.
You have not discounted the New Testament, where it states
unequivocally that the old law, prophets, priest animal sacrifices etc
have been done away with. Why do you suppose there is a New
Testiment if there was nothing wrong with the old covenant. The
Old was flawed therefore room was made for a New Covenant.
(Heb.8: 7 - 13)
The Old Testament says that the Mosaic laws are the accurate words of God.
If you think that they are not accurate then you need to explain why the
Bib
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
le says they are the accurate words of God. Your refusal to admit to the
logical results of your argument (that Moses lied) is absurd.
As I have already confessed, I'm no expert on the Old Testament.
So, why would you insist upon me making a declaration for which
I am clearly unqualified. My opinion about the integrity of the
revelations received by Moses may very well be wrong. So
based upon my opinion, I cannot in good conscience call
Moses a liar.
I don't know why you have this obssession. Could it be a
diversion: an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion that
the Old Testament has been superceded by the New as it
relates to the Christian?
I'm not trying to create a diversion, you are creating a diversion. We both
agree that determining the author of the Mosaic laws does not depend on
whether or not these laws are still in effect.

Here is the argument in a nutshell:

1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.

If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible says it
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept to obvious
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Ronald Dean
2004-04-14 22:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip> God
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
and
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of
Psa,
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a
fragmented
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the
Old
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God
and
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
he
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
down
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
argue
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit
that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
either
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Moses
Post by Ronald Dean
or
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have
refused
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
do
Post by Ronald Dean
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to
abandon
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
this
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that
Mosaic
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
law
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
is
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied. So
you
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
either
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
need
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these
errors
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
came
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
be written in the Bible.
I am very hesitant to *down* the Jewish religion by calling the
central figure of Judaism a liar But, it doesn't matter, since it
is
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
obsolete as far a Christanity is concerned.
Any contract which has been fulfilled is no longer binding upon
the parties. So it is with the first contract. So why should the
terms
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
of such a contract still be a holdover?
The law cannot bring salvation. And salvation is the goal of
Christians.
Determining the author of the Mosaic laws doesn't depend on whether
the
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
law is still in effect or not.
Moses is the author of Genesis which contains the 10 commandments
(the Mosaic laws).
Actually the Ten Commandments are in Exodus and most Biblical scholars
believe that Moses did not write any of the Bible. But if someone
believes
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
that Moses wrote the Mosaic laws into the Bible, and also believes that
they
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
are not the accurate words of God as the Bible says they are, doesn't it
logically follow that they think that Moses lied about these laws?
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Don't you agree?
Yes, whether or not the Old Testament is superceded by the New does
not impact upon who wrote the Mosaic laws. But this is immaterial
from a Christian's prospective.
If you think that the Old
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Testament does not accurately reflect the words of God, even
though
Post by Ronald Dean
it
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
says it does, then you need to explain how you came to your
conclusion.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
My conclusion is based on the fact that nothing from the OT is
required in order to obtain one's own salvation. The Christian
Church of today (New Testament Churches) has no modern prophets,
no new and additional revelations, no Aronic Priest (after the order
of Aaron - Heb. 5:4), no animal sacrifices and no dependance upon
the OT law for salvation etc..
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
I am not going to respond to the rest of your post until I get an
answer
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
to this question.
I have answered your question. It goes against the gist of your anti-
Christian crusade, therefore, you do not want to accept my answer.
You have not discounted the New Testament, where it states
unequivocally that the old law, prophets, priest animal sacrifices etc
have been done away with. Why do you suppose there is a New
Testiment if there was nothing wrong with the old covenant. The
Old was flawed therefore room was made for a New Covenant.
(Heb.8: 7 - 13)
The Old Testament says that the Mosaic laws are the accurate words of
God.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
If you think that they are not accurate then you need to explain why the
Bib
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
le says they are the accurate words of God. Your refusal to admit to
the
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your argument (that Moses lied) is absurd.
As I have already confessed, I'm no expert on the Old Testament.
So, why would you insist upon me making a declaration for which
I am clearly unqualified. My opinion about the integrity of the
revelations received by Moses may very well be wrong. So
based upon my opinion, I cannot in good conscience call
Moses a liar.
I don't know why you have this obssession. Could it be a
diversion: an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion that
the Old Testament has been superceded by the New as it
relates to the Christian?
I'm not trying to create a diversion, you are creating a diversion. We both
agree that determining the author of the Mosaic laws does not depend on
whether or not these laws are still in effect.
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible says it
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept to obvious
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were commandments from
God. So where do ywe go from here?
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-15 02:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip> God
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
and
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that
God
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of
Psa,
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a
fragmented
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
version of revelations. I have already quoted
I
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a
_shadow_
Post by Ronald Dean
of
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
the good things to come instead of the true form of
these
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the
Old
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from
God
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
and
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
he
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
down
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
argue
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit
that
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
either
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Moses
Post by Ronald Dean
or
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you
have
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
refused
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
do
Post by Ronald Dean
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the
face
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to
abandon
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
this
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that
Mosaic
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
law
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
is
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied.
So
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
you
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
either
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
need
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these
errors
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
came
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
be written in the Bible.
I am very hesitant to *down* the Jewish religion by calling the
central figure of Judaism a liar But, it doesn't matter,
since
Post by Ronald Dean
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
obsolete as far a Christanity is concerned.
Any contract which has been fulfilled is no longer binding upon
the parties. So it is with the first contract. So why should
the
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
terms
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
of such a contract still be a holdover?
The law cannot bring salvation. And salvation is the goal of
Christians.
Determining the author of the Mosaic laws doesn't depend on
whether
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
law is still in effect or not.
Moses is the author of Genesis which contains the 10 commandments
(the Mosaic laws).
Actually the Ten Commandments are in Exodus and most Biblical scholars
believe that Moses did not write any of the Bible. But if someone
believes
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
that Moses wrote the Mosaic laws into the Bible, and also believes
that
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
they
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
are not the accurate words of God as the Bible says they are,
doesn't
Post by Ronald Dean
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logically follow that they think that Moses lied about these laws?
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Don't you agree?
Yes, whether or not the Old Testament is superceded by the New does
not impact upon who wrote the Mosaic laws. But this is immaterial
from a Christian's prospective.
If you think that the Old
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Testament does not accurately reflect the words of God, even
though
Post by Ronald Dean
it
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
says it does, then you need to explain how you came to your
conclusion.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
My conclusion is based on the fact that nothing from the OT is
required in order to obtain one's own salvation. The Christian
Church of today (New Testament Churches) has no modern prophets,
no new and additional revelations, no Aronic Priest (after the order
of Aaron - Heb. 5:4), no animal sacrifices and no dependance upon
the OT law for salvation etc..
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
I am not going to respond to the rest of your post until I get an
answer
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
to this question.
I have answered your question. It goes against the gist of your
anti-
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Christian crusade, therefore, you do not want to accept my answer.
You have not discounted the New Testament, where it states
unequivocally that the old law, prophets, priest animal sacrifices
etc
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
have been done away with. Why do you suppose there is a New
Testiment if there was nothing wrong with the old covenant. The
Old was flawed therefore room was made for a New Covenant.
(Heb.8: 7 - 13)
The Old Testament says that the Mosaic laws are the accurate words of
God.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
If you think that they are not accurate then you need to explain why
the
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Bib
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
le says they are the accurate words of God. Your refusal to admit to
the
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your argument (that Moses lied) is absurd.
As I have already confessed, I'm no expert on the Old Testament.
So, why would you insist upon me making a declaration for which
I am clearly unqualified. My opinion about the integrity of the
revelations received by Moses may very well be wrong. So
based upon my opinion, I cannot in good conscience call
Moses a liar.
I don't know why you have this obssession. Could it be a
diversion: an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion that
the Old Testament has been superceded by the New as it
relates to the Christian?
I'm not trying to create a diversion, you are creating a diversion. We
both
Post by Ronald Dean
agree that determining the author of the Mosaic laws does not depend on
whether or not these laws are still in effect.
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible says it
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept to
obvious
Post by Ronald Dean
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were commandments from
God. So where do ywe go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws are
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral laws?
Ronald Dean
2004-04-15 05:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
As I have already confessed, I'm no expert on the Old Testament.
So, why would you insist upon me making a declaration for which
I am clearly unqualified. My opinion about the integrity of the
revelations received by Moses may very well be wrong. So
based upon my opinion, I cannot in good conscience call
Moses a liar.
I don't know why you have this obssession. Could it be a
diversion: an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion that
the Old Testament has been superceded by the New as it
relates to the Christian?
I'm not trying to create a diversion, you are creating a diversion.
We
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
both agree that determining the author of the Mosaic laws does not
depend on
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
whether or not these laws are still in effect.
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept to
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were commandments from
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws are
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral laws?
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on the OT,
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of little
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will. So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
I can understand this because my wife's cat. She gets the
message to stay off the furnature. And while anyone is around
she will stay off. But when we are away she will get on the table.
Yet, she gots the message, because when we return she
jumps off the table. We cannot explain why this is to her.

You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned, yet
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.

Ron
Thomas P.
2004-04-15 08:05:06 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept to
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were commandments from
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws are
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral laws?
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on the OT,
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of little
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will.
How do you know this?
Post by Ronald Dean
So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
So the Old Testament is not reliable, yet the New Testament depends on
the Old Testament being the word of god.
Post by Ronald Dean
I can understand this because my wife's cat. She gets the
message to stay off the furnature. And while anyone is around
she will stay off. But when we are away she will get on the table.
Yet, she gots the message, because when we return she
jumps off the table. We cannot explain why this is to her.
You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned,
The problem is that the New Testament depends on the Old, and both are
supposedly talking about the same god.

yet
Post by Ronald Dean
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.
Yes, that is your problem. You have explained away the problems in
the Old Testament by saying that the prophets did not fully understand
god's message, but it is the prophet's understanding of that message
that is the basis of New Testament Christianity. Furthermore, as I
implied above, perhaps the writers of the New Testament did not fully
understand god's message, so that would also make the New Testament
unreliable along with the problem of depending on a foundation you
have admitted is unreliable. The whole structure looks very flimsy,
and that ignores the more serious problem of the total non-existence
of any objective evidence for any of it.




Thomas P.

None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
stoney
2004-04-15 14:12:17 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:05:06 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by Thomas P.
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept to
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were commandments from
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws are
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral laws?
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on the OT,
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of little
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will.
How do you know this?
Post by Ronald Dean
So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
So the Old Testament is not reliable, yet the New Testament depends on
the Old Testament being the word of god.
Post by Ronald Dean
I can understand this because my wife's cat. She gets the
message to stay off the furnature. And while anyone is around
she will stay off. But when we are away she will get on the table.
Yet, she gots the message, because when we return she
jumps off the table. We cannot explain why this is to her.
You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned,
The problem is that the New Testament depends on the Old, and both are
supposedly talking about the same god.
And the NT states the old are still in effect since the earth is still
here.
Post by Thomas P.
yet
Post by Ronald Dean
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.
Yes, that is your problem. You have explained away the problems in
the Old Testament by saying that the prophets did not fully understand
god's message, but it is the prophet's understanding of that message
that is the basis of New Testament Christianity. Furthermore, as I
implied above, perhaps the writers of the New Testament did not fully
understand god's message, so that would also make the New Testament
unreliable along with the problem of depending on a foundation you
have admitted is unreliable. The whole structure looks very flimsy,
and that ignores the more serious problem of the total non-existence
of any objective evidence for any of it.
Thomas, you've just obliterated Ronald. There are no shards. :)))

It's astonishing these people say, straight-faced, they're 'rational
adults' but they're utilizing the same 'arguments' as young children
concerning Santa Claus.



Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
Thomas P.
2004-04-16 06:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by stoney
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:05:06 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by Thomas P.
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept to
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were commandments from
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws are
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral laws?
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on the OT,
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of little
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will.
How do you know this?
Post by Ronald Dean
So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
So the Old Testament is not reliable, yet the New Testament depends on
the Old Testament being the word of god.
Post by Ronald Dean
I can understand this because my wife's cat. She gets the
message to stay off the furnature. And while anyone is around
she will stay off. But when we are away she will get on the table.
Yet, she gots the message, because when we return she
jumps off the table. We cannot explain why this is to her.
You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned,
The problem is that the New Testament depends on the Old, and both are
supposedly talking about the same god.
And the NT states the old are still in effect since the earth is still
here.
Post by Thomas P.
yet
Post by Ronald Dean
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.
Yes, that is your problem. You have explained away the problems in
the Old Testament by saying that the prophets did not fully understand
god's message, but it is the prophet's understanding of that message
that is the basis of New Testament Christianity. Furthermore, as I
implied above, perhaps the writers of the New Testament did not fully
understand god's message, so that would also make the New Testament
unreliable along with the problem of depending on a foundation you
have admitted is unreliable. The whole structure looks very flimsy,
and that ignores the more serious problem of the total non-existence
of any objective evidence for any of it.
Thomas, you've just obliterated Ronald. There are no shards. :)))
It's astonishing these people say, straight-faced, they're 'rational
adults' but they're utilizing the same 'arguments' as young children
concerning Santa Claus.
The performance is impressive. It is not easy to type while keeping
both ears covered and one's eyes closed.




Thomas P.

None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
stoney
2004-04-16 22:19:43 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:33:49 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:05:06 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by Thomas P.
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept to
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were commandments from
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws are
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral laws?
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on the OT,
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of little
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will.
How do you know this?
Post by Ronald Dean
So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
So the Old Testament is not reliable, yet the New Testament depends on
the Old Testament being the word of god.
Post by Ronald Dean
I can understand this because my wife's cat. She gets the
message to stay off the furnature. And while anyone is around
she will stay off. But when we are away she will get on the table.
Yet, she gots the message, because when we return she
jumps off the table. We cannot explain why this is to her.
You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned,
The problem is that the New Testament depends on the Old, and both are
supposedly talking about the same god.
And the NT states the old are still in effect since the earth is still
here.
Post by Thomas P.
yet
Post by Ronald Dean
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.
Yes, that is your problem. You have explained away the problems in
the Old Testament by saying that the prophets did not fully understand
god's message, but it is the prophet's understanding of that message
that is the basis of New Testament Christianity. Furthermore, as I
implied above, perhaps the writers of the New Testament did not fully
understand god's message, so that would also make the New Testament
unreliable along with the problem of depending on a foundation you
have admitted is unreliable. The whole structure looks very flimsy,
and that ignores the more serious problem of the total non-existence
of any objective evidence for any of it.
Thomas, you've just obliterated Ronald. There are no shards. :)))
It's astonishing these people say, straight-faced, they're 'rational
adults' but they're utilizing the same 'arguments' as young children
concerning Santa Claus.
The performance is impressive. It is not easy to type while keeping
both ears covered and one's eyes closed.
Indeed. Invincible ignorance and terminal dishonesty. :\



Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
m***@nyc.rr.com
2004-04-17 01:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
alt.atheism,alt.recovery.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christia
n.roman-catholic
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:19:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source of
Evil Spirits 2)
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:33:49 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:05:06 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by Thomas P.
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept to
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
It is *not* my job to prove that the commandments did not come from god.

Rather,
It is your job to *prove* that the commandments came from god.

And remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs in the form
of replicable under controlled circumstances evidence.


Mombasha (newbie -- I will only see replies posted at: alt.atheism)
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were commandments from
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws are
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral laws?
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on the OT,
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of little
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will.
How do you know this?
Post by Ronald Dean
So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
So the Old Testament is not reliable, yet the New Testament depends on
the Old Testament being the word of god.
Post by Ronald Dean
I can understand this because my wife's cat. She gets the
message to stay off the furnature. And while anyone is around
she will stay off. But when we are away she will get on the table.
Yet, she gots the message, because when we return she
jumps off the table. We cannot explain why this is to her.
You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned,
The problem is that the New Testament depends on the Old, and both are
supposedly talking about the same god.
And the NT states the old are still in effect since the earth is still
here.
Post by Thomas P.
yet
Post by Ronald Dean
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.
Yes, that is your problem. You have explained away the problems in
the Old Testament by saying that the prophets did not fully understand
god's message, but it is the prophet's understanding of that message
that is the basis of New Testament Christianity. Furthermore, as I
implied above, perhaps the writers of the New Testament did not fully
understand god's message, so that would also make the New Testament
unreliable along with the problem of depending on a foundation you
have admitted is unreliable. The whole structure looks very flimsy,
and that ignores the more serious problem of the total non-existence
of any objective evidence for any of it.
Thomas, you've just obliterated Ronald. There are no shards. :)))
It's astonishing these people say, straight-faced, they're 'rational
adults' but they're utilizing the same 'arguments' as young children
concerning Santa Claus.
The performance is impressive. It is not easy to type while keeping
both ears covered and one's eyes closed.
Indeed. Invincible ignorance and terminal dishonesty. :\
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
David V.
2004-04-17 02:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
It is *not* my job to prove that the commandments did
not come from god.
Rather, It is your job to *prove* that the commandments
came from god.
They need to prove the god exists first.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
stoney
2004-04-19 14:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
It is *not* my job to prove that the commandments did
not come from god.
Rather, It is your job to *prove* that the commandments
came from god.
They need to prove the god exists first.
Which requires the g-o-d letter string be defined. What is put forth as
a 'definition' begs the question (many questions), handwaves furiously,
and provides zero information. There is, literally, nothing to look for
or consider.



Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
David V.
2004-04-19 14:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by stoney
Post by David V.
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
It is *not* my job to prove that the commandments
did not come from god.
Rather, It is your job to *prove* that the
commandments came from god.
They need to prove the god exists first.
Which requires the g-o-d letter string be defined. What
is put forth as a 'definition' begs the question (many
questions), handwaves furiously, and provides zero
information. There is, literally, nothing to look for or
consider.
That's my point. :-) They can't even define this silly god
let alone prove it exists.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-17 22:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
alt.atheism,alt.recovery.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christ
ia
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
n.roman-catholic
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:19:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source of
Evil Spirits 2)
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:33:49 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by stoney
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:05:06 +0200, Thomas P.
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:00:40 -0400, "Ronald Dean"
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible
says
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept to
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
It is *not* my job to prove that the commandments did not come from god.
Rather,
It is your job to *prove* that the commandments came from god.
And remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs in the form
of replicable under controlled circumstances evidence.
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in the existence of gods. I often debate
with theists by assuming for the sake of argument that their opinions are
true. I then explore the logical results of their opinions.
stoney
2004-04-19 14:16:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:16:05 -0400, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<***@Here.com>, Message ID: <8oidnTWlBKkmMRzdRVn-***@adelphia.com>
wrote in alt.atheism;
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
alt.atheism,alt.recovery.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christ
ia
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
n.roman-catholic
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:19:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source
of
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Evil Spirits 2)
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:33:49 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by stoney
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:05:06 +0200, Thomas P.
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:00:40 -0400, "Ronald Dean"
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the
Bible
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Post by stoney
says
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept
to
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Post by stoney
Post by Ronald Dean
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
It is *not* my job to prove that the commandments did not come from god.
Rather,
It is your job to *prove* that the commandments came from god.
And remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs in the
form
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
of replicable under controlled circumstances evidence.
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in the existence of gods. I often debate
with theists by assuming for the sake of argument that their opinions are
true. I then explore the logical results of their opinions.
..to find logic doesn't enter their universe.



Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
Billy Bell
2004-04-19 14:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
alt.atheism,alt.recovery.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christ
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
ia
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
n.roman-catholic
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:19:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the
Source
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
of
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Evil Spirits 2)
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:33:49 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by stoney
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:05:06 +0200, Thomas P.
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:00:40 -0400, "Ronald Dean"
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the
Bible
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Post by stoney
says
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to
accept
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Post by stoney
Post by Ronald Dean
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
It is *not* my job to prove that the commandments did not come from god.
Rather,
It is your job to *prove* that the commandments came from god.
And remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs in the
form
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
of replicable under controlled circumstances evidence.
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in the existence of gods. I often debate
with theists by assuming for the sake of argument that their opinions are
true.
Basically you keep an ace up your sleeve, a way out if you get bested! You
have no investment in an argument. So you can always think so what if I lose
the argument, I cant lose. --Bill












I then explore the logical results of their opinions.
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-19 23:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
alt.atheism,alt.recovery.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christ
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
ia
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
n.roman-catholic
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:19:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the
Source
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
of
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Evil Spirits 2)
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:33:49 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by stoney
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:05:06 +0200, Thomas P.
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:00:40 -0400, "Ronald Dean"
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the
Bible
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Post by stoney
says
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to
accept
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Post by stoney
Post by Ronald Dean
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
It is *not* my job to prove that the commandments did not come from
god.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Rather,
It is your job to *prove* that the commandments came from god.
And remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs in the
form
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
of replicable under controlled circumstances evidence.
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in the existence of gods. I often debate
with theists by assuming for the sake of argument that their opinions are
true. I then explore the logical results of their opinions.
Basically you keep an ace up your sleeve, a way out if you get bested! You
have no investment in an argument. So you can always think so what if I lose
the argument, I cant lose. --Bill
What are you talking about???
Billy Bell
2004-04-20 00:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
alt.atheism,alt.recovery.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christ
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
ia
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
n.roman-catholic
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:19:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the
Source
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
of
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Evil Spirits 2)
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:33:49 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by stoney
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:05:06 +0200, Thomas P.
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:00:40 -0400, "Ronald Dean"
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the
Bible
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Post by stoney
says
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to
accept
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Post by stoney
Post by Ronald Dean
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
It is *not* my job to prove that the commandments did not come from
god.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Rather,
It is your job to *prove* that the commandments came from god.
And remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs in the
form
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
of replicable under controlled circumstances evidence.
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in the existence of gods. I often
debate
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
with theists by assuming for the sake of argument that their opinions
are
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
true. I then explore the logical results of their opinions.
Basically you keep an ace up your sleeve, a way out if you get bested! You
have no investment in an argument. So you can always think so what if I
lose
the argument, I cant lose. --Bill
What are you talking about???
You post to religious groups, in hopes of convincing some
people of the falsehood of their religion. You are appealing
to folks who have a large investment in their faith which you
wish to destroy. But by contrast, you as an atheist, have no
investment. Nothing is risked on your part. - Bill
David V.
2004-04-20 01:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billy Bell
You post to religious groups, in hopes of convincing some
people of the falsehood of their religion.
Christians post to Atheist groups in hopes of convincing
people that their religion is true. They also do it to
impress other christians.
Post by Billy Bell
You are appealing to folks who have a large investment in
their faith which you wish to destroy.
It's an emotional investment, not a logical one. Is
destroying their faith in a fantasy such a bad thing? Is
liberating a prisoner of war such a bad thing?
Post by Billy Bell
But by contrast, you as an atheist, have no investment.
Nothing is risked on your part. - Bill
We have an investment in humanity.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-20 03:00:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by stoney
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
alt.atheism,alt.recovery.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christ
Post by stoney
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
ia
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
n.roman-catholic
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:19:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the
Source
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
of
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Evil Spirits 2)
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:33:49 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by stoney
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:05:06 +0200, Thomas P.
alt.atheism;
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Post by stoney
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:00:40 -0400, "Ronald Dean"
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though
the
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Bible
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Post by stoney
says
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to
accept
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Post by stoney
Post by Ronald Dean
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
It is *not* my job to prove that the commandments did not come
from
Post by Ronald Dean
god.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Rather,
It is your job to *prove* that the commandments came from god.
And remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs in
the
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
form
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
of replicable under controlled circumstances evidence.
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in the existence of gods. I often
debate
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
with theists by assuming for the sake of argument that their opinions
are
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
true. I then explore the logical results of their opinions.
Basically you keep an ace up your sleeve, a way out if you get bested!
You
Post by Ronald Dean
have no investment in an argument. So you can always think so what if I
lose
the argument, I cant lose. --Bill
What are you talking about???
You post to religious groups, in hopes of convincing some
people of the falsehood of their religion. You are appealing
to folks who have a large investment in their faith which you
wish to destroy. But by contrast, you as an atheist, have no
investment. Nothing is risked on your part. - Bill
What do you mean by an "investment in their faith"?
stoney
2004-04-19 14:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@nyc.rr.com
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
alt.atheism,alt.recovery.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christia
n.roman-catholic
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:19:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source of
Evil Spirits 2)
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:33:49 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by stoney
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:05:06 +0200, Thomas P.
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible
says
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept to
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
It is *not* my job to prove that the commandments did not come from god.
Rather,
It is your job to *prove* that the commandments came from god.
And remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs in the form
of replicable under controlled circumstances evidence.
Mombasha (newbie -- I will only see replies posted at: alt.atheism)
Welcome to the zoo, Mombasha.



Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
Ronald Dean
2004-04-15 15:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas P.
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept to
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were commandments from
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws are
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral laws?
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on the OT,
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of little
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will.
How do you know this?
Because of John 1:1, 14 etc.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
So the Old Testament is not reliable, yet the New Testament depends on
the Old Testament being the word of god.
It was imperfect because of man. Man was and is imperfect.
<snip> >
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned,
The problem is that the New Testament depends on the Old, and both are
supposedly talking about the same god.
But the New has superceded the old because the Old Covenant
was faulty. The Covenant was a contract between God and man
but man was unwilling or unable to keep the contract. Man
could not fulfill the terms of the contract.
Post by Thomas P.
yet
Post by Ronald Dean
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.
Yes, that is your problem. You have explained away the problems in
the Old Testament by saying that the prophets did not fully understand
god's message, but it is the prophet's understanding of that message
that is the basis of New Testament Christianity.
I disagree. The basis of the New Testament was the coming of
Jesus Christ. God made flesh.
Furthermore, as I
Post by Thomas P.
implied above, perhaps the writers of the New Testament did not fully
understand god's message, so that would also make the New Testament
unreliable along with the problem of depending on a foundation you
have admitted is unreliable.
That is only an opinion.
The whole structure looks very flimsy,
Post by Thomas P.
and that ignores the more serious problem of the total non-existence
of any objective evidence for any of it.
It's a matter of faith. If God exist I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance. There is
no empirical or material evidence for God. But since God
is a spirit; why would there be. By the same token God
has not been falsified.

Ron
Post by Thomas P.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Icarus
2004-04-15 16:41:49 UTC
Permalink
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god. Or unless it turns out that
god regards people who use the powers of reason which he bestowed
on them more highly than those who think blind faith is a virtue.

In reality of course, you need not worry, since gods are no more
than an invention of the human mind, and when you're dead and
gone it won't matter in the slightest what you believed when you
were alive.
Ronald Dean
2004-04-15 18:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10 thousand
gods is the true God. I still have one chance in 10,000, but you have
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!

Ron
Or unless it turns out that
Post by Icarus
god regards people who use the powers of reason which he bestowed
on them more highly than those who think blind faith is a virtue.
In reality of course, you need not worry, since gods are no more
than an invention of the human mind, and when you're dead and
gone it won't matter in the slightest what you believed when you
were alive.
David V.
2004-04-15 18:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance than an
unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God
in 10 thousand gods is the true God. I still have one
chance in 10,000, but you have absolutily[sic] _no_
chance at all what-so-ever!
Actually, the odds are the same for either since none of
those gods exist outside human mythologies and literature.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
Ronald Dean
2004-04-15 19:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance than an
unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God
in 10 thousand gods is the true God. I still have one
chance in 10,000, but you have absolutily[sic] _no_
chance at all what-so-ever!
Actually, the odds are the same for either since none of
those gods exist outside human mythologies and literature.
I have no interest at all what-so-ever of convincing you of
anything. You are entitled to your own opinion. But that is
all that it is an _opinion_.

Ron
Post by David V.
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
David V.
2004-04-15 19:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance than an
unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one
God in 10 thousand gods is the true God. I still have
one chance in 10,000, but you have absolutily[sic]
_no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
Actually, the odds are the same for either since none
of those gods exist outside human mythologies and
literature.
I have no interest at all what-so-ever of convincing you
of anything.
Which is another lie. If it were true, you wouldn't have
even responded.
Post by Ronald Dean
You are entitled to your own opinion. But that is all
that it is an _opinion_.
It's not an opinion; it's the truth. Pascal's Wager won't
save you and your anthropomorphic gods are not real. If they
were real, you'd have no problem proving it.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
Ronald Dean
2004-04-16 00:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance than an
unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one
God in 10 thousand gods is the true God. I still have
one chance in 10,000, but you have absolutily[sic]
_no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
Actually, the odds are the same for either since none
of those gods exist outside human mythologies and
literature.
I have no interest at all what-so-ever of convincing you
of anything.
Which is another lie. If it were true, you wouldn't have
even responded.
Actually I was _only_ defending myself!
Post by David V.
UDP for WebTV
David V.
2004-04-16 01:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance than an
unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that
one God in 10 thousand gods is the true God. I
still have one chance in 10,000, but you have
absolutily[sic] _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
Actually, the odds are the same for either since
none of those gods exist outside human mythologies
and literature.
I have no interest at all what-so-ever of convincing
you of anything.
Which is another lie. If it were true, you wouldn't
have even responded.
Actually I was _only_ defending myself!
Another _lie_. Is that _all_ you can _do_? You know.... if
you don't say anything stupid; you won't have to defend
yourself. Pascal's Wager is a rather pedestrian fallacy.
It's a suckers bet.

You were not defending yourself, you were running away from
the burden of proof since you know you cannot prove your
gods exist. That's why you engage in side arguments and
derailing; you can't address the main issue: the existence
of your gods. Any argument involving the bible is begging
the question; does the god it talks about actually exist.
Until you provide answers, not claims, to that question you
are just talking out of your ass.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
Ronald Dean
2004-04-16 02:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance than an
unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that
one God in 10 thousand gods is the true God. I
still have one chance in 10,000, but you have
absolutily[sic] _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
Actually, the odds are the same for either since
none of those gods exist outside human mythologies
and literature.
I have no interest at all what-so-ever of convincing
you of anything.
Which is another lie. If it were true, you wouldn't
have even responded.
Actually I was _only_ defending myself!
Another _lie_. Is that _all_ you can _do_? You know.... if
you don't say anything stupid; you won't have to defend
yourself. Pascal's Wager is a rather pedestrian fallacy.
It's a suckers bet.
You were not defending yourself, you were running away from
the burden of proof since you know you cannot prove your
gods exist. That's why you engage in side arguments and
derailing; you can't address the main issue: the existence
of your gods. Any argument involving the bible is begging
the question; does the god it talks about actually exist.
Until you provide answers, not claims, to that question you
are just talking out of your ass.
This doesn't interest me so why should I humor you!
*plonk*
Post by David V.
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
David V.
2004-04-16 04:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance than
an unbeliever! He has absolutely no
chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility
that one God in 10 thousand gods is the true
God. I still have one chance in 10,000, but
you have absolutily[sic] _no_ chance at all
what-so-ever!
Actually, the odds are the same for either
since none of those gods exist outside human
mythologies and literature.
I have no interest at all what-so-ever of
convincing you of anything.
Which is another lie. If it were true, you wouldn't
have even responded.
Actually I was _only_ defending myself!
Another _lie_. Is that _all_ you can _do_? You know....
if you don't say anything stupid; you won't have to
defend yourself. Pascal's Wager is a rather pedestrian
fallacy. It's a suckers bet.
You were not defending yourself, you were running away
from the burden of proof since you know you cannot
prove your gods exist. That's why you engage in side
arguments and derailing; you can't address the main
issue: the existence of your gods. Any argument
involving the bible is begging the question; does the
god it talks about actually exist. Until you provide
answers, not claims, to that question you are just
talking out of your ass.
This doesn't interest me so why should I humor you!
*plonk*
That's it; when the going gets tough - run away.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
Thomas P.
2004-04-16 06:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance than an
unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God
in 10 thousand gods is the true God. I still have one
chance in 10,000, but you have absolutily[sic] _no_
chance at all what-so-ever!
Actually, the odds are the same for either since none of
those gods exist outside human mythologies and literature.
I have no interest at all what-so-ever of convincing you of
anything. You are entitled to your own opinion. But that is
all that it is an _opinion_.
It is more than an opinion. Your god has no evidence in support of
it. The beliefs concerning this god are contradictory. If it was
anything else but your god being proposed with the same problems, you
would very likely reject it out of hand.




Thomas P.

None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
stoney
2004-04-16 22:21:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:33:48 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance than an
unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God
in 10 thousand gods is the true God. I still have one
chance in 10,000, but you have absolutily[sic] _no_
chance at all what-so-ever!
Actually, the odds are the same for either since none of
those gods exist outside human mythologies and literature.
I have no interest at all what-so-ever of convincing you of
anything. You are entitled to your own opinion. But that is
all that it is an _opinion_.
It is more than an opinion. Your god has no evidence in support of
it. The beliefs concerning this god are contradictory. If it was
anything else but your god being proposed with the same problems, you
would very likely reject it out of hand.
That reaction is a forgone conclusion.

Ronald Dean speaks with forked tongue. Therefore, it's off to hell he
goes!



Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
m***@nyc.rr.com
2004-04-17 01:05:36 UTC
Permalink
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
alt.atheism,alt.recovery.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christia
n.roman-catholic
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:21:47 -0700
Subject: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source of
Evil Spirits 2)
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:33:48 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance than an
unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God
in 10 thousand gods is the true God. I still have one
chance in 10,000, but you have absolutily[sic] _no_
chance at all what-so-ever!
Actually, the odds are the same for either since none of
those gods exist outside human mythologies and literature.
I have no interest at all what-so-ever of convincing you of
anything. You are entitled to your own opinion. But that is
all that it is an _opinion_.
It is more than an opinion. Your god has no evidence in support of
it. The beliefs concerning this god are contradictory. If it was
anything else but your god being proposed with the same problems, you
would very likely reject it out of hand.
That reaction is a forgone conclusion.
The question of the proposed existence of god(s) is *not* an opinion.

It is the job of anyone who puts forth the theory that there is a god to
prove his theory with replicable under controlled circumstances evidence.

And, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

Mombasha (newbie -- I will only see replies posted to: alt.atheism)
Ronald Dean speaks with forked tongue. Therefore, it's off to hell he
goes!
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
William
2004-04-15 19:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10 thousand
gods is the true God. I still have one chance in 10,000, but you have
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
If God exists he might be have integrity and object to those who see
belief as some sort of "if you don't play you won't win" lotto. He
might in fact prefer the honest doubter who witholds belief until
there is proper convincing evidence. Betting on God may be just what
gets you excluded.

William
Robibnkoff
2004-04-15 19:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10 thousand
gods is the true God. I still have one chance in 10,000, but you have
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
That's as juvenile as "I know you are, but what am I?"

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
stoney
2004-04-16 22:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10 thousand
gods is the true God. I still have one chance in 10,000, but you have
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
That's as juvenile as "I know you are, but what am I?"
Robyn, you forget Christians like Ronald are toddlers in adult bodies.



Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
Ronald Dean
2004-04-18 05:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by stoney
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10 thousand
gods is the true God. I still have one chance in 10,000, but you have
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
That's as juvenile as "I know you are, but what am I?"
Robyn, you forget Christians like Ronald are toddlers in adult bodies.
You cannot discount the argument so you try to discredit the person.
Post by stoney
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
Thomas P.
2004-04-18 12:09:16 UTC
Permalink
says...
Post by stoney
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10 thousand
gods is the true God. I still have one chance in 10,000, but you have
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
That's as juvenile as "I know you are, but what am I?"
Robyn, you forget Christians like Ronald are toddlers in adult bodies.
You cannot discount the argument so you try to discredit the person.
No, the truth is that your argument was discounted long before you
were born, and it has also been refuted here by several posters. Your
argument does not work, and you have been told why.






Thomas P.

None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Ronald Dean
2004-04-18 14:47:05 UTC
Permalink
alt.atheism;
Post by Thomas P.
says...
Post by stoney
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10 thousand
gods is the true God. I still have one chance in 10,000, but you have
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
That's as juvenile as "I know you are, but what am I?"
Robyn, you forget Christians like Ronald are toddlers in adult bodies.
You cannot discount the argument so you try to discredit the person.
No, the truth is that your argument was discounted long before you
were born, and it has also been refuted here by several posters. Your
argument does not work, and you have been told why.
No one has refuted it! Engaging in personal insults does not
discount my argument. Even one chance in billions is better
than none at all!

Ron
Post by Thomas P.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Thomas P.
2004-04-18 18:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by stoney
alt.atheism;
Post by Thomas P.
says...
Post by stoney
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10
thousand
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
gods is the true God. I still have one chance in 10,000, but you have
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
That's as juvenile as "I know you are, but what am I?"
Robyn, you forget Christians like Ronald are toddlers in adult bodies.
You cannot discount the argument so you try to discredit the person.
No, the truth is that your argument was discounted long before you
were born, and it has also been refuted here by several posters. Your
argument does not work, and you have been told why.
No one has refuted it! Engaging in personal insults does not
discount my argument. Even one chance in billions is better
than none at all!
Here is my response to your argument once again (others have pointed
Post by stoney
God has not been falsified and neither has any of the infinite number of other possible gods, yet you assume that there are only two choices belief in your version of a god or no belief at all. Add to that the fact that your Bible is full of serious problems and contradictions, and one has very little reason to take the claims of Christianity seriously.
Furthermore saying I have no chance at all is a false conclusion. Even if a god exists, it would not automatically mean that there would be such a thing as eternal punishment or reward. Perhaps the real god rewards people who try to think rationally and believe what makes sense or what has been established to be true with evidence; wouldn't that be strange, a god who rewarded honesty?
Thomas P.

None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Ronald Dean
2004-04-18 20:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:45:32 GMT, Robibnkoff
alt.atheism;
Post by Thomas P.
says...
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10
thousand
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
gods is the true God. I still have one chance in 10,000, but you have
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
That's as juvenile as "I know you are, but what am I?"
Robyn, you forget Christians like Ronald are toddlers in adult bodies.
You cannot discount the argument so you try to discredit the person.
No, the truth is that your argument was discounted long before you
were born, and it has also been refuted here by several posters. Your
argument does not work, and you have been told why.
No one has refuted it! Engaging in personal insults does not
discount my argument. Even one chance in billions is better
than none at all!
Here is my response to your argument once again (others have pointed
Post by stoney
God has not been falsified and neither has any of the infinite number of
other possible gods, yet you assume that there are only two choices belief
in your version of a god or no belief at all.
No, appearently you cannot think beyond the paths trodden countless
times berfore you: that isn't at all; what I mean! I assumed billions
of possible gods. One choice in billions - not just the two choices
which you _attribute_ to me.
Add to that the fact that your Bible is full of serious problems and
contradictions, and one has very little reason to take the claims of
Christianity seriously.
The Old Testament is no longer in force for Christians. The Christian is
under a _New_ Covenant. (Heb: 8: 13)
Ron
<statement non sequitur snipped>
Post by Thomas P.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Thomas P.
2004-04-19 06:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:45:32 GMT, Robibnkoff
alt.atheism;
Dean
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
says...
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10
thousand
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
gods is the true God. I still have one chance in 10,000, but you
have
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
That's as juvenile as "I know you are, but what am I?"
Robyn, you forget Christians like Ronald are toddlers in adult
bodies.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
You cannot discount the argument so you try to discredit the person.
No, the truth is that your argument was discounted long before you
were born, and it has also been refuted here by several posters. Your
argument does not work, and you have been told why.
No one has refuted it! Engaging in personal insults does not
discount my argument. Even one chance in billions is better
than none at all!
Here is my response to your argument once again (others have pointed
Post by stoney
God has not been falsified and neither has any of the infinite number of
other possible gods, yet you assume that there are only two choices belief
in your version of a god or no belief at all.
No, appearently you cannot think beyond the paths trodden countless
times berfore you: that isn't at all; what I mean! I assumed billions
of possible gods. One choice in billions - not just the two choices
which you _attribute_ to me.
No, you assumed only two possibilities - a god that would reward
believers and punish non-believers. I notice you cut out (without
noting the cut) the part where I explained that. Here it is again;
Post by stoney
Furthermore saying I have no chance at all is a false conclusion. Even if a god exists, it would not automatically mean that there would be such a thing as eternal punishment or reward. Perhaps the real god rewards people who try to think rationally and believe what makes sense or what has been established to be true with evidence; wouldn't that be strange, a god who rewarded honesty?
Add to that the fact that your Bible is full of serious problems and
contradictions, and one has very little reason to take the claims of
Christianity seriously.
The Old Testament is no longer in force for Christians. The Christian is
under a _New_ Covenant. (Heb: 8: 13)
That is totally non-responsive. At least you did not make believe it
wasnt' there as you did with the above passage I reinserted.




Thomas P.

None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Ronald Dean
2004-04-19 16:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 01:42:52 -0400, "Ronald Dean"
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:45:32 GMT, Robibnkoff
alt.atheism;
Dean
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
says...
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10
thousand
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
gods is the true God. I still have one chance in 10,000, but you
have
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
That's as juvenile as "I know you are, but what am I?"
Robyn, you forget Christians like Ronald are toddlers in adult
bodies.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
You cannot discount the argument so you try to discredit the person.
No, the truth is that your argument was discounted long before you
were born, and it has also been refuted here by several posters.
Your
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
argument does not work, and you have been told why.
No one has refuted it! Engaging in personal insults does not
discount my argument. Even one chance in billions is better
than none at all!
Here is my response to your argument once again (others have pointed
Post by stoney
God has not been falsified and neither has any of the infinite number of
other possible gods, yet you assume that there are only two choices belief
in your version of a god or no belief at all.
No, appearently you cannot think beyond the paths trodden countless
times berfore you: that isn't at all; what I mean! I assumed billions
of possible gods. One choice in billions - not just the two choices
which you _attribute_ to me.
No, you assumed only two possibilities - a god that would reward
believers and punish non-believers. I notice you cut out (without
noting the cut) the part where I explained that. Here it is again;
Post by stoney
Furthermore saying I have no chance at all is a false conclusion. Even
if a god exists, it would not automatically mean that there would be such a
thing as eternal punishment or reward. Perhaps the real god rewards people
who try to think rationally and believe what makes sense or what has been
established to be true with evidence; wouldn't that be strange, a god who
rewarded honesty?
I suspect that the overridding motivation of atheist is the desire _not_ to
ever be held
accountable. How honest is this?

Ron
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Add to that the fact that your Bible is full of serious problems and
contradictions, and one has very little reason to take the claims of
Christianity seriously.
The Old Testament is no longer in force for Christians. The Christian is
under a _New_ Covenant. (Heb: 8: 13)
That is totally non-responsive. At least you did not make believe it
wasnt' there as you did with the above passage I reinserted.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Thomas P.
2004-04-19 18:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 01:42:52 -0400, "Ronald Dean"
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:45:32 GMT, Robibnkoff
alt.atheism;
Ronald
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Dean
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
says...
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10
thousand
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
gods is the true God. I still have one chance in 10,000, but
you
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
have
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
That's as juvenile as "I know you are, but what am I?"
Robyn, you forget Christians like Ronald are toddlers in adult
bodies.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
You cannot discount the argument so you try to discredit the
person.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
No, the truth is that your argument was discounted long before you
were born, and it has also been refuted here by several posters.
Your
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
argument does not work, and you have been told why.
No one has refuted it! Engaging in personal insults does not
discount my argument. Even one chance in billions is better
than none at all!
Here is my response to your argument once again (others have pointed
Post by stoney
God has not been falsified and neither has any of the infinite number
of
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
other possible gods, yet you assume that there are only two choices
belief
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
in your version of a god or no belief at all.
No, appearently you cannot think beyond the paths trodden countless
times berfore you: that isn't at all; what I mean! I assumed billions
of possible gods. One choice in billions - not just the two choices
which you _attribute_ to me.
No, you assumed only two possibilities - a god that would reward
believers and punish non-believers. I notice you cut out (without
noting the cut) the part where I explained that. Here it is again;
Post by stoney
Furthermore saying I have no chance at all is a false conclusion. Even
if a god exists, it would not automatically mean that there would be such a
thing as eternal punishment or reward. Perhaps the real god rewards people
who try to think rationally and believe what makes sense or what has been
established to be true with evidence; wouldn't that be strange, a god who
rewarded honesty?
I suspect that the overridding motivation of atheist is the desire _not_ to
ever be held
accountable. How honest is this?
How honest is it for you to post the above nonsense? It is very
dishonest and an obvious attempt to avoid responding to what I
actually wrote by posting a baseless insult as a diversion.

You just can't bring yourself to face it can you?







Thomas P.

None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Ronald Dean
2004-04-20 04:28:02 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Thomas P.
says...
Post by stoney
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10
thousand
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
gods is the true God. I still have one chance in 10,000, but
you
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
have
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
That's as juvenile as "I know you are, but what am I?"
Robyn, you forget Christians like Ronald are toddlers in adult
bodies.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Thomas P.
You cannot discount the argument so you try to discredit the
person.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Thomas P.
No, the truth is that your argument was discounted long before you
were born, and it has also been refuted here by several posters.
Your
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Thomas P.
argument does not work, and you have been told why.
No one has refuted it! Engaging in personal insults does not
discount my argument. Even one chance in billions is better
than none at all!
Here is my response to your argument once again (others have pointed
Post by Ronald Dean
God has not been falsified and neither has any of the infinite number
of
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
other possible gods, yet you assume that there are only two choices
belief
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
in your version of a god or no belief at all.
No, appearently you cannot think beyond the paths trodden countless
times berfore you: that isn't at all; what I mean! I assumed billions
of possible gods. One choice in billions - not just the two choices
which you _attribute_ to me.
No, you assumed only two possibilities - a god that would reward
believers and punish non-believers. I notice you cut out (without
noting the cut) the part where I explained that. Here it is again;
Post by stoney
Furthermore saying I have no chance at all is a false conclusion.
Even
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
if a god exists, it would not automatically mean that there would be such a
thing as eternal punishment or reward. Perhaps the real god rewards people
who try to think rationally and believe what makes sense or what has been
established to be true with evidence; wouldn't that be strange, a god who
rewarded honesty?
I suspect that the overridding motivation of atheist is the desire _not_ to
ever be held
accountable. How honest is this?
How honest is it for you to post the above nonsense? It is very
dishonest and an obvious attempt to avoid responding to what I
actually wrote by posting a baseless insult as a diversion.
You talk about diversions, the introduction of this topic into a long
running thread which had nothing to do with whether of not God
existed is a real diversion. Everything you posted is non sequitur.

Ron
Post by Thomas P.
You just can't bring yourself to face it can you?
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Thomas P.
2004-04-20 07:06:26 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
No, you assumed only two possibilities - a god that would reward
believers and punish non-believers. I notice you cut out (without
noting the cut) the part where I explained that. Here it is again;
Post by Thomas P.
Furthermore saying I have no chance at all is a false conclusion.
Even
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
if a god exists, it would not automatically mean that there would be such
a
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
thing as eternal punishment or reward. Perhaps the real god rewards
people
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
who try to think rationally and believe what makes sense or what has been
established to be true with evidence; wouldn't that be strange, a god who
rewarded honesty?
I suspect that the overridding motivation of atheist is the desire _not_
to
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
ever be held
accountable. How honest is this?
How honest is it for you to post the above nonsense? It is very
dishonest and an obvious attempt to avoid responding to what I
actually wrote by posting a baseless insult as a diversion.
You talk about diversions, the introduction of this topic into a long
running thread which had nothing to do with whether of not God
existed is a real diversion. Everything you posted is non sequitur.
I was responding to your posts.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
You just can't bring yourself to face it can you?
You have made it ever clearer now. You just can't face it.
First you cut out what I wrote without noting the cut. I reinsert it,
and you respond with an insult havíng nothing to do with what I wrote.
Now you pretend that it was all a non sequitur, even though I was
merely responding to what you were claiming and, at first, trying to
defend. Very poor show!




Thomas P.

None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Ronald Dean
2004-04-21 00:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas P.
snip
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
No, you assumed only two possibilities - a god that would reward
believers and punish non-believers. I notice you cut out (without
noting the cut) the part where I explained that. Here it is again;
Post by Thomas P.
Furthermore saying I have no chance at all is a false conclusion.
Even
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
if a god exists, it would not automatically mean that there would be such
a
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
thing as eternal punishment or reward. Perhaps the real god rewards
people
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
who try to think rationally and believe what makes sense or what has been
established to be true with evidence; wouldn't that be strange, a god who
rewarded honesty?
I suspect that the overridding motivation of atheist is the desire _not_
to
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
ever be held
accountable. How honest is this?
How honest is it for you to post the above nonsense? It is very
dishonest and an obvious attempt to avoid responding to what I
actually wrote by posting a baseless insult as a diversion.
You talk about diversions, the introduction of this topic into a long
running thread which had nothing to do with whether of not God
existed is a real diversion. Everything you posted is non sequitur.
I was responding to your posts.
No, not to anything I wrote. You find it necessary
to *reinterpret* my statements then respond to your
own strawman. This is a strawman you're attacking.
I get tired of this, and I see no point in humoring
you. The question as to whether of not God exist
is no issue, yet this is your argument. I have no
interest in debating this at present. My interest now
is showing that the New Testiment has superceded
the old.

Ron
Post by Thomas P.
Post by stoney
Post by Thomas P.
You just can't bring yourself to face it can you?
You have made it ever clearer now. You just can't face it.
First you cut out what I wrote without noting the cut. I reinsert it,
and you respond with an insult havíng nothing to do with what I wrote.
Now you pretend that it was all a non sequitur, even though I was
merely responding to what you were claiming and, at first, trying to
defend. Very poor show!
As I stated before I have no desire or interest in convincing
you of anything. I get tired of responding over and over to
the same idiotic peopl

Ron
Post by Thomas P.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
David V.
2004-04-21 01:10:14 UTC
Permalink
.... No, not to anything I wrote. You find it necessary
to *reinterpret* my statements then respond to your own
strawman. This is a strawman you're attacking......
Do you see what he's doing here? "Side tracking." He arguing
about anything but the main point. That's done when someone
has no logical support for any of their claims so they have
to derail, or side track, the discussion.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
David V.
2004-04-19 01:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 01:42:52 -0400, "Ronald Dean"
Post by Ronald Dean
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:45:32 GMT, Robibnkoff
, Ronald Dean says...
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance than
an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that
one God in 10 thousand gods is the true God. I
still have one chance in 10,000, but you have
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
That's as juvenile as "I know you are, but what
am I?"
Robyn, you forget Christians like Ronald are
toddlers in adult bodies.
You cannot discount the argument so you try to
discredit the person.
No, the truth is that your argument was discounted long
before you were born, and it has also been refuted here
by several posters. Your argument does not work, and
you have been told why.
No one has refuted it!
I refuted it. You just didn't like the answer. It was
refuted the day Pascal came up with it. You just need to
come into the 21 Century.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
David V.
2004-04-18 14:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by stoney
Ronald Dean says...
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance than an
unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one
God in 10 thousand gods is the true God. I still
have one chance in 10,000, but you have absolutily[sic]
_no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
That's as juvenile as "I know you are, but what am
I?"
Robyn, you forget Christians like Ronald are toddlers
in adult bodies.
You cannot discount the argument so you try to discredit
the person.
Your "argument" was so absurd that you discredited yourself.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
stoney
2004-04-19 14:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by stoney
Ronald Dean says...
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance than an
unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one
God in 10 thousand gods is the true God. I still
have one chance in 10,000, but you have absolutily[sic]
_no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
That's as juvenile as "I know you are, but what am
I?"
Robyn, you forget Christians like Ronald are toddlers
in adult bodies.
You cannot discount the argument so you try to discredit
the person.
Your "argument" was so absurd that you discredited yourself.
His constant dishonesty further grants him the 'status' of 'christian
jester.'

Proverbs 6 (kjv)
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea,
seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands
that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,

Ronald is scheduled to lovingly burn for eternity.



Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
stoney
2004-04-19 14:25:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 01:42:52 -0400, "Ronald Dean" <***@bellsouth.net>,
Message ID: <Axogc.26547$***@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote in
alt.atheism;
says...
Post by stoney
Post by Robibnkoff
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10 thousand
gods is the true God. I still have one chance in 10,000, but you have
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
That's as juvenile as "I know you are, but what am I?"
Robyn, you forget Christians like Ronald are toddlers in adult bodies.
You cannot discount the argument so you try to discredit the person.
You have no argument, Ronald. And your own Bible says you are to
approach "Christ" as a child. How sadly common a non-theist has to
correct a believer about what is in their *own* 'holy tome.'

If the (theist) is discredited, it's of their own doing-except it's not
as it was all part of their deity's "divine plan."

You, Ronald, as a christian slave, are ordered to rejoyce since
everything is "God Swill(tm)" concerning you.

If you're going to 'disobey god' then bitch to 'him' about it as I
didn't write your 'holy tome' of bronze age toilet paper.



Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
Icarus
2004-04-16 00:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10
thousand gods is the true God. I still have one chance in
10,000, but you have absolutily _no_ chance at all
what-so-ever!
Not so. That would only be true if:

1: There were actually any such things as gods;
2: The god or gods that actually exist are included
in the set of gods that you have heard of (probably
a very small subset of all the gods ever invented);
3: The god or gods that actually exist are benevolent
and fair rather than capricious or malevolent;
4: Belief is the *only* criterion for being granted
an afterlife (rather than e.g. being virtuous, or rational,
or descended from the right tribe 2,000 years ago etc.);
5: Your god or gods wouldn't rather have an honest
atheist in their heaven than a believer who gloats over
the presumed damnation of others...

I could probably think of more, given time... :-) IOW you're on very
shaky ground and should be very worried about what to do, and what to
believe in, and what the characteristics of the thing you choose to
believe in might be... unless you come to your senses one day and
realise that gods are just man-made characters, that therefore there's
really nothing to worry about, and you can relax in the sure and
certain knowledge that the only thing lying in wait for you after
death is eternal, inevitable oblivion.

Cheers...

--
"All thinking men are atheists" - Ernest Hemingway
Ronald Dean
2004-04-16 01:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10
thousand gods is the true God. I still have one chance in
10,000, but you have absolutily _no_ chance at all
what-so-ever!
1: There were actually any such things as gods;
The absence of material evidence where a spiritual being
is concerned is to be accepted. It isn't surprising that
there is no empirical evidence for God
Post by Icarus
2: The god or gods that actually exist are included
in the set of gods that you have heard of (probably
a very small subset of all the gods ever invented);
There seems to be a God hole in the psych, since every
society has belief in some God. Could it be we are
created to need God?
Post by Icarus
3: The god or gods that actually exist are benevolent
and fair rather than capricious or malevolent;
I believe God is fair.
Post by Icarus
4: Belief is the *only* criterion for being granted
an afterlife (rather than e.g. being virtuous, or rational,
or descended from the right tribe 2,000 years ago etc.);
5: Your god or gods wouldn't rather have an honest
atheist in their heaven than a believer who gloats over
the presumed damnation of others...
I've said _nothing_ about gloating over the misfortune of
others. Gloating is inexcusable.
Post by Icarus
I could probably think of more, given time... :-) IOW you're on very
shaky ground and should be very worried about what to do, and what to
believe in, and what the characteristics of the thing you choose to
believe in might be... unless you come to your senses one day and
realise that gods are just man-made characters, that therefore there's
really nothing to worry about, and you can relax in the sure and
certain knowledge that the only thing lying in wait for you after
death is eternal, inevitable oblivion.
If this is true, then your life is futile, hopeless and pointless. It
will end one day. I'm _absolutely_ convinced mine will not. My
spirit will go on after physical death. I have seen no evidence
to the contrary.

I'm not going to continue this topic, since there is no purpose
to be served in doing so!

Ron
Post by Icarus
Cheers...
--
"All thinking men are atheists" - Ernest Hemingway
David V.
2004-04-16 01:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
1: There were actually any such things as gods;
The absence of material evidence where a spiritual being
is concerned is to be accepted.
No, it is not.
Post by Ronald Dean
It isn't surprising that there is no empirical evidence
for God
That's because the gods do not exist.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
2: The god or gods that actually exist are included in
the set of gods that you have heard of (probably a very
small subset of all the gods ever invented);
There seems to be a God hole in the psych....
No, there isn't.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
3: The god or gods that actually exist are benevolent
and fair rather than capricious or malevolent;
I believe God is fair.
So, you think "fair" is eternal punishment for not kissing
god's ass?
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
4: Belief is the *only* criterion for being granted an
afterlife (rather than e.g. being virtuous, or
rational, or descended from the right tribe 2,000 years
ago etc.);
5: Your god or gods wouldn't rather have an honest
atheist in their heaven than a believer who gloats over
the presumed damnation of others...
I've said _nothing_ about gloating over the misfortune of
others. Gloating is inexcusable.
All so called christians gloat.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
I could probably think of more, given time... :-) IOW
you're on very shaky ground and should be very worried
about what to do, and what to believe in, and what the
characteristics of the thing you choose to believe in
might be... unless you come to your senses one day and
realize that gods are just man-made characters, that
therefore there's really nothing to worry about, and
you can relax in the sure and certain knowledge that
the only thing lying in wait for you after death is
eternal, inevitable oblivion.
If this is true, then your life is futile, hopeless and
pointless.
More lies. If you need a god to have a purpose in life, then
you have a problem.
Post by Ronald Dean
I'm not going to continue this topic, since there is no
purpose to be served in doing so!
Running away from getting your ass whipped?
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
Ronald Dean
2004-04-16 02:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
1: There were actually any such things as gods;
The absence of material evidence where a spiritual being
is concerned is to be accepted.
No, it is not.
Post by Ronald Dean
It isn't surprising that there is no empirical evidence
for God
That's because the gods do not exist.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
2: The god or gods that actually exist are included in
the set of gods that you have heard of (probably a very
small subset of all the gods ever invented);
There seems to be a God hole in the psych....
No, there isn't.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
3: The god or gods that actually exist are benevolent
and fair rather than capricious or malevolent;
I believe God is fair.
So, you think "fair" is eternal punishment for not kissing
god's ass?
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
4: Belief is the *only* criterion for being granted an
afterlife (rather than e.g. being virtuous, or
rational, or descended from the right tribe 2,000 years
ago etc.);
5: Your god or gods wouldn't rather have an honest
atheist in their heaven than a believer who gloats over
the presumed damnation of others...
I've said _nothing_ about gloating over the misfortune of
others. Gloating is inexcusable.
All so called christians gloat.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
I could probably think of more, given time... :-) IOW
you're on very shaky ground and should be very worried
about what to do, and what to believe in, and what the
characteristics of the thing you choose to believe in
might be... unless you come to your senses one day and
realize that gods are just man-made characters, that
therefore there's really nothing to worry about, and
you can relax in the sure and certain knowledge that
the only thing lying in wait for you after death is
eternal, inevitable oblivion.
If this is true, then your life is futile, hopeless and
pointless.
More lies. If you need a god to have a purpose in life, then
you have a problem.
Post by Ronald Dean
I'm not going to continue this topic, since there is no
purpose to be served in doing so!
Running away from getting your ass whipped?
To me the existance of God is a Given. I have no interest
in this discussion.
Post by David V.
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
David V.
2004-04-16 04:40:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
1: There were actually any such things as gods;
The absence of material evidence where a spiritual
being is concerned is to be accepted.
No, it is not.
Post by Ronald Dean
It isn't surprising that there is no empirical
evidence for God
That's because the gods do not exist.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
2: The god or gods that actually exist are
included in the set of gods that you have heard of
(probably a very small subset of all the gods ever
invented);
There seems to be a God hole in the psych....
No, there isn't.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
3: The god or gods that actually exist are
benevolent and fair rather than capricious or
malevolent;
I believe God is fair.
So, you think "fair" is eternal punishment for not
kissing god's ass?
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
4: Belief is the *only* criterion for being
granted an afterlife (rather than e.g. being
virtuous, or rational, or descended from the right
tribe 2,000 years ago etc.);
5: Your god or gods wouldn't rather have an honest
atheist in their heaven than a believer who gloats
over the presumed damnation of others...
I've said _nothing_ about gloating over the
misfortune of others. Gloating is inexcusable.
All so called christians gloat.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
I could probably think of more, given time... :-)
IOW you're on very shaky ground and should be very
worried about what to do, and what to believe in,
and what the characteristics of the thing you
choose to believe in might be... unless you come to
your senses one day and realize that gods are just
man-made characters, that therefore there's really
nothing to worry about, and you can relax in the
sure and certain knowledge that the only thing
lying in wait for you after death is eternal,
inevitable oblivion.
If this is true, then your life is futile, hopeless
and pointless.
More lies. If you need a god to have a purpose in life,
then you have a problem.
Post by Ronald Dean
I'm not going to continue this topic, since there is
no purpose to be served in doing so!
Running away from getting your ass whipped?
To me the existance[sic] of God is a Given. I have no
interest in this discussion.
All that means is that you are a mindless twit that only
believes what he is told to believe. Your actions are like
that of a small child putting his fingers in his ears and
chanting nonsense phrases when there's something he doesn't
want to hear. It seems your whole belief system is based on
lies, obfuscation, and planned ignorance. You have my pity.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
Thomas P.
2004-04-16 06:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10
thousand gods is the true God. I still have one chance in
10,000, but you have absolutily _no_ chance at all
what-so-ever!
1: There were actually any such things as gods;
The absence of material evidence where a spiritual being
is concerned is to be accepted. It isn't surprising that
there is no empirical evidence for God
It would be equally unsurprising that there is no empirical evidence
for things that do not exist. For any other proposal for god the lack
of evidence would be a good reason to reject the proposal. For some
reason you seem to think that lack of evidence is a plus when it comes
to your god.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
2: The god or gods that actually exist are included
in the set of gods that you have heard of (probably
a very small subset of all the gods ever invented);
There seems to be a God hole in the psych, since every
society has belief in some God. Could it be we are
created to need God?
We have a need for answers. Unfortunately people often make up
answers when they have no real knowledge.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
3: The god or gods that actually exist are benevolent
and fair rather than capricious or malevolent;
I believe God is fair.
Assuming an all-powerful god exists, reality would indicate a total
lack of fairness in this god.



snip


Thomas P.

None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Icarus
2004-04-18 23:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10
thousand gods is the true God. I still have one chance in
10,000, but you have absolutily _no_ chance at all
what-so-ever!
1: There were actually any such things as gods;
The absence of material evidence where a spiritual being
is concerned is to be accepted. It isn't surprising that
there is no empirical evidence for God
Who said anything about evidence? The point was simply that if there
are no gods, your 'chance' (of eternal life, presumably) is exactly
the same as everyone else's, i.e. nil (regardless of which one you
believe in).
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
2: The god or gods that actually exist are included
in the set of gods that you have heard of (probably
a very small subset of all the gods ever invented);
There seems to be a God hole in the psych, since every
society has belief in some God. Could it be we are
created to need God?
No; the existence of atheists disproves this, and how does this
address my point anyway? You can't believe in a god that you've never
heard of. If the one god that (hypothetically) actually exists is one
you've never heard of, then according to your logic you have exactly
the same 'chance' as everyone else, i.e. nil.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
3: The god or gods that actually exist are benevolent
and fair rather than capricious or malevolent;
I believe God is fair.
Your belief is beside the point. If a god exists who isn't fair, or
who is actually malevolent, then again your logic fails - You may
actually have a worse chance than an atheist.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
4: Belief is the *only* criterion for being granted
an afterlife (rather than e.g. being virtuous, or
rational, or descended from the right tribe 2,000 years
ago etc.);
I see you didn't address this point. Again, another hole in your
logic.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
5: Your god or gods wouldn't rather have an honest
atheist in their heaven than a believer who gloats over
the presumed damnation of others...
I've said _nothing_ about gloating over the misfortune of
others. Gloating is inexcusable.
You said "...you have absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!".
We could be forgiven for thinking that was gloating, I'm sure you'd
agree. Another hole in your logic goes unanswered.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
I could probably think of more, given time... :-) IOW
you're on very shaky ground and should be very worried about
what to do, and what to believe in, and what the
characteristics of the thing you choose to believe in might
be... unless you come to your senses one day and realise that
gods are just man-made characters, that therefore there's
really nothing to worry about, and you can relax in the sure
and certain knowledge that the only thing lying in wait for
you after death is eternal, inevitable oblivion.
If this is true, then your life is futile, hopeless and
pointless.
Not at all. I'm here, I'm living, I'm enjoying life, there's nothing
pointless about that. For life to be pointless, it would have to be
better for me to die right now than to carry on living and enjoy all
the things I'm planning to do in the future. How are you going to
argue that I'm better off *not* living and doing those things?
Post by Ronald Dean
It will end one day. I'm _absolutely_ convinced
mine will not.
The plus side is that you'll never know you were wrong :-)
Post by Ronald Dean
My spirit will go on after physical death. I
have seen no evidence
to the contrary.
There is absolutely no reason to believe it, and your logic has more
holes than a Swiss cheese...

--
"All thinking men are atheists" - Ernest Hemingway
Ronald Dean
2004-04-19 00:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in 10
thousand gods is the true God. I still have one chance in
10,000, but you have absolutily _no_ chance at all
what-so-ever!
1: There were actually any such things as gods;
The absence of material evidence where a spiritual being
is concerned is to be accepted. It isn't surprising that
there is no empirical evidence for God
Who said anything about evidence? The point was simply that if there
are no gods, your 'chance' (of eternal life, presumably) is exactly
the same as everyone else's, i.e. nil (regardless of which one you
believe in).
The point is you CANNOT know there is no God. I have nothing
to prove to you. I personally am convinced that some supernatural
intelligence exist.
<snip>
Post by Icarus
There seems to be a God hole in the psych, since every
Post by Ronald Dean
society has belief in some God. Could it be we are
created to need God?
No; the existence of atheists disproves this, and how does this
address my point anyway? You can't believe in a god that you've never
heard of. If the one god that (hypothetically) actually exists is one
you've never heard of, then according to your logic you have exactly
the same 'chance' as everyone else, i.e. nil.
Nonsense, at worse I would have 1 chance in billions. You, however,
would have none at all!
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
3: The god or gods that actually exist are benevolent
and fair rather than capricious or malevolent;
I believe God is fair.
Your belief is beside the point. If a god exists who isn't fair, or
who is actually malevolent, then again your logic fails - You may
actually have a worse chance than an atheist.
IF if if. That's all you have!!
Post by Icarus
I see you didn't address this point. Again, another hole in your
logic.
No, the hole is in your logic. All you offer is your opinion that no
god(s) exist. You cannot falsify my argument!
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
5: Your god or gods wouldn't rather have an honest
atheist in their heaven than a believer who gloats over
the presumed damnation of others...
I've said _nothing_ about gloating over the misfortune of
others. Gloating is inexcusable.
You said "...you have absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!".
We could be forgiven for thinking that was gloating,
No, that would be extreme sadness! Gloating is very non-Christian,
since no one earns his reward.

<snip> >>
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
If this is true, then your life is futile, hopeless and
pointless.
Not at all. I'm here, I'm living, I'm enjoying life, there's nothing
pointless about that. For life to be pointless, it would have to be
better for me to die right now than to carry on living and enjoy all
the things I'm planning to do in the future. How are you going to
argue that I'm better off *not* living and doing those things?
Post by Ronald Dean
It will end one day. I'm _absolutely_ convinced
mine will not.
The plus side is that you'll never know you were wrong :-)
Post by Ronald Dean
My spirit will go on after physical death. I
have seen no evidence to the contrary.
There is absolutely no reason to believe it, and your logic has more
holes than a Swiss cheese...
But if I am right then, the grave will not be my final resting place.
But for you there is nothing to look forward to except death, decay
and the oblivion.

Ron
Post by Icarus
--
"All thinking men are atheists" - Ernest Hemingway
David V.
2004-04-19 01:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance than an
unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that
one God in 10 thousand gods is the true God. I
still have one chance in 10,000, but you have
absolutily _no_ chance at all what-so-ever!
1: There were actually any such things as gods;
The absence of material evidence where a spiritual
being is concerned is to be accepted. It isn't
surprising that there is no empirical evidence for
God
Who said anything about evidence? The point was simply
that if there are no gods, your 'chance' (of eternal
life, presumably) is exactly the same as everyone
else's, i.e. nil (regardless of which one you believe
in).
The point is you CANNOT know there is no God...
Sure you can. If you read the bible you know that god does
not exist. The same goes for any other revealed god. They
are ALL anthropomorphic mythologies. Since you, nor anyone
else, has, or can, provide any evidence that any god exists,
and have failed to provide that proof for thousands of
years; it is logical to assume that these gods do not exist.
<snip>
Post by Icarus
There seems to be a God hole in the psych, since every
Post by Ronald Dean
society has belief in some God. Could it be we are
created to need God?
No; the existence of atheists disproves this, and how
does this address my point anyway? You can't believe
in a god that you've never heard of. If the one god
that (hypothetically) actually exists is one you've
never heard of, then according to your logic you have
exactly the same 'chance' as everyone else, i.e. nil.
Nonsense, at worse I would have 1 chance in billions.
You, however, would have none at all!
You have no chance since none of those gods exist.
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
3: The god or gods that actually exist are
benevolent and fair rather than capricious or
malevolent;
I believe God is fair.
Your belief is beside the point. If a god exists who
isn't fair, or who is actually malevolent, then again
your logic fails - You may actually have a worse chance
than an atheist.
IF if if. That's all you have!!
No, that's all the theists have. Your Pascal's Wager is an 'if'.
Post by Icarus
I see you didn't address this point. Again, another
hole in your logic.
No, the hole is in your logic. All you offer is your
opinion that no god(s) exist. You cannot falsify my
argument!
Your argument falsifies itself and you have provided nothing
to support it.
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
5: Your god or gods wouldn't rather have an honest
atheist in their heaven than a believer who gloats
over the presumed damnation of others...
I've said _nothing_ about gloating over the
misfortune of others. Gloating is inexcusable.
You said "...you have absolutily _no_ chance at all
what-so-ever!". We could be forgiven for thinking that
was gloating,
No, that would be extreme sadness!
Which is what christians do best; gloat.... or is lying what
they do best?
<snip> >>
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
If this is true, then your life is futile, hopeless
and pointless.
Not at all. I'm here, I'm living, I'm enjoying life,
there's nothing pointless about that. For life to be
pointless, it would have to be better for me to die
right now than to carry on living and enjoy all the
things I'm planning to do in the future. How are you
going to argue that I'm better off *not* living and
doing those things?
Post by Ronald Dean
It will end one day. I'm _absolutely_ convinced mine
will not.
The plus side is that you'll never know you were wrong
He's not wrong.
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
My spirit will go on after physical death. I have
seen no evidence to the contrary.
There is absolutely no reason to believe it, and your
logic has more holes than a Swiss cheese...
But if I am right then.....
Oh, there's that 'if' again. You'll have to do better than
an 'if'.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-19 04:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
The point is you CANNOT know there is no God. I have nothing
to prove to you. I personally am convinced that some supernatural
intelligence exist.
The truth is that it is logically possible to prove that there is no God.
Varicose Brain
2004-04-19 14:16:59 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:16:03 -0400, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
The point is you CANNOT know there is no God. I have nothing
to prove to you. I personally am convinced that some supernatural
intelligence exist.
The truth is that it is logically possible to prove that there is no God.
Don't you mean the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative?
David V.
2004-04-19 16:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Varicose Brain
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
The point is you CANNOT know there is no God. I have
nothing to prove to you. I personally am convinced
that some supernatural intelligence exist.
The truth is that it is logically possible to prove
that there is no God.
Don't you mean the logical fallacy of trying to prove a
negative?
The confused editor, hopefully, meant that it is logically
possible to prove that the christian god, and any other
revealed god, does not exist. And to the answer to your next
question; read Atheism, The Case Against God, by George H.
Smith. He explains it all in very simple, easy to
understand, ways.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
Varicose Brain
2004-04-19 18:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
The confused editor, hopefully, meant that it is logically
possible to prove that the christian god, and any other
revealed god, does not exist. And to the answer to your next
question; read Atheism, The Case Against God, by George H.
Smith. He explains it all in very simple, easy to
understand, ways.
I've read it before. Excellent book. Still, trying to prove a negative
is an exercise in futility. Having the burden of such proof shifted to
the non-believer is also a common tactic that religionists use. For
example, if I were to say that I spent my weekends on the Jupiter moon
Io, swimming in lush pink oceans and having my every need attended to
by young, green-skinned super models with flowing, naturally blue
hair, and I'd say to you, "If you don't believe me, prove me wrong!"
there would be no way that you could do such a task. Thus,
religionists always think that they've won in this respect.
David V.
2004-04-19 19:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Varicose Brain
Post by David V.
The confused editor, hopefully, meant that it is
logically possible to prove that the christian god, and
any other revealed god, does not exist. And to the
answer to your next question; read Atheism, The Case
Against God, by George H. Smith. He explains it all in
very simple, easy to understand, ways.
I've read it before. Excellent book.
It was a recommendation for others reading this thread, not
necessarily you in particular. I know you understand, but
others don't and have a hard time with the concepts.
Post by Varicose Brain
Still, trying to prove a negative is an exercise in
futility.
Yes, but proving an anthropomorphic mythological god is not.
Post by Varicose Brain
Having the burden of such proof shifted to the
non-believer is also a common tactic that religionists
use.
I know. They get mad when I don't let them do it. :-)
Post by Varicose Brain
For example, if I were to say that I spent my weekends on
the Jupiter moon Io, swimming in lush pink oceans and
having my every need attended to by young, green-skinned
super models with flowing, naturally blue hair, and I'd
say to you, "If you don't believe me, prove me wrong!"
there would be no way that you could do such a task.
There is. The oceans there are purple, not pink.
Post by Varicose Brain
Thus, religionists always think that they've won in this
respect.
They claim victory even when they know they lied. Their main
argument is the argument from ignorance, with a bunch of
arrogance thrown in.

Speaking of Io; I wonder what's under all that ice?
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-19 23:47:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Post by Varicose Brain
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
The point is you CANNOT know there is no God. I have
nothing to prove to you. I personally am convinced
that some supernatural intelligence exist.
The truth is that it is logically possible to prove
that there is no God.
Don't you mean the logical fallacy of trying to prove a
negative?
The confused editor, hopefully, meant that it is logically
possible to prove that the christian god, and any other
revealed god, does not exist.
I'm not confused. That's why I capitalized "God".
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-19 23:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Varicose Brain
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:16:03 -0400, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
The point is you CANNOT know there is no God. I have nothing
to prove to you. I personally am convinced that some supernatural
intelligence exist.
The truth is that it is logically possible to prove that there is no God.
Don't you mean the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative?
Proving a negative is not a logical fallacy. How stupid are you to believe
such bullshit? For example I can prove that there is no beer in my
refrigerator by a simple visual observation.
Varicose Brain
2004-04-20 04:44:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:50:55 -0400, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Varicose Brain
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
The point is you CANNOT know there is no God. I have nothing
to prove to you. I personally am convinced that some supernatural
intelligence exist.
The truth is that it is logically possible to prove that there is no God.
Don't you mean the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative?
Proving a negative is not a logical fallacy. How stupid are you to believe
such bullshit? For example I can prove that there is no beer in my
refrigerator by a simple visual observation.
That's as may be, but you're over-simplifying the concept. How would
you prove it to anyone who doesn't have access to your fridge? Go to
http://www.randi.org/jr/020604monk.html and scroll down to where it
reads "polygraph again" and see how the concept is applied to a
different situation.
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-20 13:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Varicose Brain
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:50:55 -0400, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Varicose Brain
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
The point is you CANNOT know there is no God. I have nothing
to prove to you. I personally am convinced that some supernatural
intelligence exist.
The truth is that it is logically possible to prove that there is no God.
Don't you mean the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative?
Proving a negative is not a logical fallacy. How stupid are you to believe
such bullshit? For example I can prove that there is no beer in my
refrigerator by a simple visual observation.
That's as may be, but you're over-simplifying the concept. How would
you prove it to anyone who doesn't have access to your fridge?
I can prove that there is no beer in my refrigerator by taking a picture and
sending it to them.
Post by Varicose Brain
Go to
http://www.randi.org/jr/020604monk.html and scroll down to where it
reads "polygraph again" and see how the concept is applied to a
different situation.
The truth of the matter is that there is no logical fallacy in proving a
negative. That's why you won't see it listed in any logic textbooks. I
gave you an excellent example that proves that you can provide proof of a
negative statement. This argument is over and you lost. Grow up and accept
the obvious.
Varicose Brain
2004-04-20 15:28:09 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:20:01 -0400, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Varicose Brain
That's as may be, but you're over-simplifying the concept. How would
you prove it to anyone who doesn't have access to your fridge?
I can prove that there is no beer in my refrigerator by taking a picture and
sending it to them.
...and how would we know it's your refrigerator? Or how would we know
you didn't just remove the beer and then take the picture, or use
Photoshop? Again you're oversimplifying the concept. There are too
many variables that figure into things. Scientists don't take things
for granted in this way.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Varicose Brain
Go to
http://www.randi.org/jr/020604monk.html and scroll down to where it
reads "polygraph again" and see how the concept is applied to a
different situation.
The truth of the matter is that there is no logical fallacy in proving a
negative. That's why you won't see it listed in any logic textbooks. I
gave you an excellent example that proves that you can provide proof of a
negative statement. This argument is over and you lost. Grow up and accept
the obvious.
But your example is flawed. Religionists and believers don't think
this way. They have their concept of god, and have shifted the burden
of proof. Like the polygraph test in the article above, there's no way
you can prove "true believers" wrong.

While I enjoy reading your posts and support what you're doing with
your website, I believe that you are wrong in this case.
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-20 21:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Varicose Brain
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:20:01 -0400, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Varicose Brain
That's as may be, but you're over-simplifying the concept. How would
you prove it to anyone who doesn't have access to your fridge?
I can prove that there is no beer in my refrigerator by taking a picture and
sending it to them.
...and how would we know it's your refrigerator? Or how would we know
you didn't just remove the beer and then take the picture, or use
Photoshop? Again you're oversimplifying the concept. There are too
many variables that figure into things. Scientists don't take things
for granted in this way.
There are just as many variables for proving that my refrigerator contains
beer as there is for proving it does not contain beer. Yet you seem to
think that one scenario is provable and one isn't. That makes no sense at
all.
Post by Varicose Brain
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Varicose Brain
Go to
http://www.randi.org/jr/020604monk.html and scroll down to where it
reads "polygraph again" and see how the concept is applied to a
different situation.
The truth of the matter is that there is no logical fallacy in proving a
negative. That's why you won't see it listed in any logic textbooks. I
gave you an excellent example that proves that you can provide proof of a
negative statement. This argument is over and you lost. Grow up and accept
the obvious.
But your example is flawed. Religionists and believers don't think
this way. They have their concept of god, and have shifted the burden
of proof. Like the polygraph test in the article above, there's no way
you can prove "true believers" wrong.
My example is not flawed. A simple visual observation can prove that my
refrigerator contains no beer. Your red herring about not having access to
the refrigerator is absurd. I can prove it to anyone who cares to look.
You claimed that you can't prove a negative. That is absurd.
Post by Varicose Brain
While I enjoy reading your posts and support what you're doing with
your website, I believe that you are wrong in this case.
You can believe whatever you want. That doesn't mean that it's true.
Thomas P.
2004-04-19 06:19:38 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
There seems to be a God hole in the psych, since every
Post by Ronald Dean
society has belief in some God. Could it be we are
created to need God?
No; the existence of atheists disproves this, and how does this
address my point anyway? You can't believe in a god that you've never
heard of. If the one god that (hypothetically) actually exists is one
you've never heard of, then according to your logic you have exactly
the same 'chance' as everyone else, i.e. nil.
Nonsense, at worse I would have 1 chance in billions. You, however,
would have none at all!
As has been explained to you (and ignored), everyone would have an
equal chance. You refuse to see it.



snip


Thomas P.

None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Ronald Dean
2004-04-21 00:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas P.
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
There seems to be a God hole in the psych, since every
Post by Ronald Dean
society has belief in some God. Could it be we are
created to need God?
No; the existence of atheists disproves this, and how does this
address my point anyway? You can't believe in a god that you've never
heard of. If the one god that (hypothetically) actually exists is one
you've never heard of, then according to your logic you have exactly
the same 'chance' as everyone else, i.e. nil.
Nonsense, at worse I would have 1 chance in billions. You, however,
would have none at all!
As has been explained to you (and ignored), everyone would have an
equal chance. You refuse to see it.
It's idiotic!!! One chance in billions is better than no chance at all!
There is on chance that the God I worship is the _one_ and only
God along with the conditions I believe he demands. This alone
justifies my argument. So, all other gods are non entities and you
are left with zero chance and no hope.

Ron
Post by Thomas P.
snip
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Icarus
2004-04-19 12:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Icarus
If God exists I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance.
Unless you believe in the wrong god.
Even so, there remains the one possibility that one God in
10 thousand gods is the true God. I still have one chance
in 10,000, but you have absolutily _no_ chance at all
what-so-ever!
1: There were actually any such things as gods;
The absence of material evidence where a spiritual being
is concerned is to be accepted. It isn't surprising that
there is no empirical evidence for God
Who said anything about evidence? The point was simply that
if there are no gods, your 'chance' (of eternal life,
presumably) is exactly the same as everyone else's, i.e. nil
(regardless of which one you believe in).
The point is you CANNOT know there is no God. I have nothing
to prove to you. I personally am convinced that some
supernatural intelligence exist.
That's fine, you're entitled to your beliefs of course... I'm
only pointing out the holes in your attempt at a reasoned
argument - i.e. you can't be sure you have a 'better chance' than
an unbeliever, and you can't be sure that unbelievers have
"absolutely no chance", for all the reasons I've enumerated
already. However, you don't seem interested in addressing any of
those points, but rather you ignore them or respond with
something irrelevant. I suspect that means you don't have
confidence in your argument.

Rest snipped as I don't think you're capable of an honest and
intelligent discussion.

Cheers...
Thomas P.
2004-04-16 06:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Thomas P.
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept
to
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were commandments
from
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws are
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral laws?
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on the OT,
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of little
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will.
How do you know this?
Because of John 1:1, 14 etc.
I see. You know it because a book told you, a book you have admitted
is based on another book that is not reliable.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
So the Old Testament is not reliable, yet the New Testament depends on
the Old Testament being the word of god.
It was imperfect because of man. Man was and is imperfect.
You still have not addressed the problem. The New Testament depends
on a book that cannot be relied on. The New Testament was also
written by men. Based on your own reasoning there is no reason to
believe that the New Testament is perfect.
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip> >
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned,
The problem is that the New Testament depends on the Old, and both are
supposedly talking about the same god.
But the New has superceded the old because the Old Covenant
was faulty. The Covenant was a contract between God and man
but man was unwilling or unable to keep the contract. Man
could not fulfill the terms of the contract.
This is what you say, but, (once again) based on your own reasoning,
we cannot rely on any information gained from the Old Testament;
since, as you say, the prophets did not fully understand god's
message.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Thomas P.
yet
Post by Ronald Dean
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.
Yes, that is your problem. You have explained away the problems in
the Old Testament by saying that the prophets did not fully understand
god's message, but it is the prophet's understanding of that message
that is the basis of New Testament Christianity.
I disagree. The basis of the New Testament was the coming of
Jesus Christ. God made flesh.
The idea that there was a messiah prophecied and that Jesus fulfilled
that prophecy is based on readings from the Old Testament, a book you
say is not reliable. You then rely on the New Testament, a book that
could be just as unreliable; since it is based on the Old and, like
the old, was written be men who may not have fully understood god's
message.
Post by Ronald Dean
Furthermore, as I
Post by Thomas P.
implied above, perhaps the writers of the New Testament did not fully
understand god's message, so that would also make the New Testament
unreliable along with the problem of depending on a foundation you
have admitted is unreliable.
That is only an opinion.
It is what your argument is based on. If you are going to now say
that both books are reliable, you will once again have the same
problems you tried to solve by saying the Old Testament was not
reliable.
Post by Ronald Dean
The whole structure looks very flimsy,
Post by Thomas P.
and that ignores the more serious problem of the total non-existence
of any objective evidence for any of it.
It's a matter of faith.
In other words you have to ignore all the problems including the ones
discussed above before you can believe it. That method you call
"faith".
Post by Ronald Dean
If God exist I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance. There is
no empirical or material evidence for God. But since God
is a spirit; why would there be. By the same token God
has not been falsified.
God has not been falsified and neither has any of the infinite number
of other possible gods, yet you assume that there are only two choices
belief in your version of a god or no belief at all. Add to that the
fact that your Bible is full of serious problems and contradictions,
and one has very little reason to take the claims of Christianity
seriously.

Furthermore saying I have no chance at all is a false conclusion.
Even if a god exists, it would not automatically mean that there would
be such a thing as eternal punishment or reward. Perhaps the real god
rewards people who try to think rationally and believe what makes
sense or what have been established to be true with evidence; wouldn't
that be strange a god who rewarded honesty?




Thomas P.

None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
stoney
2004-04-16 22:33:58 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:33:46 +0200, Thomas P.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Thomas P.
snip
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept
to
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were commandments
from
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws are
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral laws?
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on the OT,
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of little
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will.
How do you know this?
Because of John 1:1, 14 etc.
I see. You know it because a book told you, a book you have admitted
is based on another book that is not reliable.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTH

What a bloody idiot, Mr. Dean is.

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the
stars and even their sizes and distances, and this knowledge he holds
with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and
disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about
such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We
should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation,
lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to
scorn."

-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim" (The Literal
Meaning of Genesis)


"Oh Ronald Dean, dear Ronald Dean, you are so mercifully free of the
ravages of intelligence."
- Evil, Time Bandits (adapted)
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
So the Old Testament is not reliable, yet the New Testament depends on
the Old Testament being the word of god.
It was imperfect because of man. Man was and is imperfect.
You still have not addressed the problem. The New Testament depends
on a book that cannot be relied on. The New Testament was also
written by men. Based on your own reasoning there is no reason to
believe that the New Testament is perfect.
Ronald commits seppeku.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
<snip> >
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned,
The problem is that the New Testament depends on the Old, and both are
supposedly talking about the same god.
But the New has superceded the old because the Old Covenant
was faulty. The Covenant was a contract between God and man
but man was unwilling or unable to keep the contract. Man
could not fulfill the terms of the contract.
This is what you say, but, (once again) based on your own reasoning,
we cannot rely on any information gained from the Old Testament;
since, as you say, the prophets did not fully understand god's
message.
Ronald commits seppeku.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Thomas P.
yet
Post by Ronald Dean
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.
Yes, that is your problem. You have explained away the problems in
the Old Testament by saying that the prophets did not fully understand
god's message, but it is the prophet's understanding of that message
that is the basis of New Testament Christianity.
I disagree. The basis of the New Testament was the coming of
Jesus Christ. God made flesh.
The idea that there was a messiah prophecied and that Jesus fulfilled
that prophecy is based on readings from the Old Testament, a book you
say is not reliable. You then rely on the New Testament, a book that
could be just as unreliable; since it is based on the Old and, like
the old, was written be men who may not have fully understood god's
message.
Ronald commits seppeku.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
Furthermore, as I
Post by Thomas P.
implied above, perhaps the writers of the New Testament did not fully
understand god's message, so that would also make the New Testament
unreliable along with the problem of depending on a foundation you
have admitted is unreliable.
That is only an opinion.
It is what your argument is based on. If you are going to now say
that both books are reliable, you will once again have the same
problems you tried to solve by saying the Old Testament was not
reliable.
Ronald commits seppeku.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
The whole structure looks very flimsy,
Post by Thomas P.
and that ignores the more serious problem of the total non-existence
of any objective evidence for any of it.
It's a matter of faith.
In other words you have to ignore all the problems including the ones
discussed above before you can believe it. That method you call
"faith".
Ronald commits seppeku.
ROFLMAO @ him

It's a matter of terminal gullibility and invincible ignorance mixed
with a Grand Canyon sized scoop of dishonesty.
Post by Thomas P.
Post by Ronald Dean
If God exist I have a better chance
than an unbeliever! He has absolutely no chance. There is
no empirical or material evidence for God. But since God
is a spirit; why would there be. By the same token God
has not been falsified.
God has not been falsified and neither has any of the infinite number
of other possible gods, yet you assume that there are only two choices
belief in your version of a god or no belief at all. Add to that the
fact that your Bible is full of serious problems and contradictions,
and one has very little reason to take the claims of Christianity
seriously.
Furthermore saying I have no chance at all is a false conclusion.
Even if a god exists, it would not automatically mean that there would
be such a thing as eternal punishment or reward. Perhaps the real god
rewards people who try to think rationally and believe what makes
sense or what have been established to be true with evidence; wouldn't
that be strange a god who rewarded honesty?
Ronald commits seppeku.
ROFLMAO @ him



Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-15 12:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
As I have already confessed, I'm no expert on the Old Testament.
So, why would you insist upon me making a declaration for which
I am clearly unqualified. My opinion about the integrity of the
revelations received by Moses may very well be wrong. So
based upon my opinion, I cannot in good conscience call
Moses a liar.
I don't know why you have this obssession. Could it be a
diversion: an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion that
the Old Testament has been superceded by the New as it
relates to the Christian?
I'm not trying to create a diversion, you are creating a diversion.
We
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
both agree that determining the author of the Mosaic laws does not
depend on
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
whether or not these laws are still in effect.
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept to
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were commandments from
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws are
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral laws?
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on the OT,
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of little
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will. So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
I can understand this because my wife's cat. She gets the
message to stay off the furnature. And while anyone is around
she will stay off. But when we are away she will get on the table.
Yet, she gots the message, because when we return she
jumps off the table. We cannot explain why this is to her.
You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned, yet
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.
I don't see the point in debating this any more. It's obvious that you
believe that parts of the Bible are true and parts are false, yet you refuse
to admit this.
Ronald Dean
2004-04-15 15:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
As I have already confessed, I'm no expert on the Old Testament.
So, why would you insist upon me making a declaration for which
I am clearly unqualified. My opinion about the integrity of the
revelations received by Moses may very well be wrong. So
based upon my opinion, I cannot in good conscience call
Moses a liar.
I don't know why you have this obssession. Could it be a
diversion: an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion that
the Old Testament has been superceded by the New as it
relates to the Christian?
I'm not trying to create a diversion, you are creating a diversion.
We
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
both agree that determining the author of the Mosaic laws does not
depend on
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
whether or not these laws are still in effect.
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to accept to
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were commandments
from
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws are
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral laws?
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on the OT,
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of little
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will. So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
I can understand this because my wife's cat. She gets the
message to stay off the furnature. And while anyone is around
she will stay off. But when we are away she will get on the table.
Yet, she gots the message, because when we return she
jumps off the table. We cannot explain why this is to her.
You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned, yet
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.
I don't see the point in debating this any more. It's obvious that you
believe that parts of the Bible are true and parts are false, yet you refuse
to admit this.
That is _your_ spin. You cannot dictate what I believe and what I do not.
The Old Covenant containing the law has been fulfilled fro Christanity.
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-15 17:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
As I have already confessed, I'm no expert on the Old Testament.
So, why would you insist upon me making a declaration for which
I am clearly unqualified. My opinion about the integrity of the
revelations received by Moses may very well be wrong. So
based upon my opinion, I cannot in good conscience call
Moses a liar.
I don't know why you have this obssession. Could it be a
diversion: an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion that
the Old Testament has been superceded by the New as it
relates to the Christian?
I'm not trying to create a diversion, you are creating a
diversion.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
We
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
both agree that determining the author of the Mosaic laws does not
depend on
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
whether or not these laws are still in effect.
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the Bible
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to
accept
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were
commandments
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
from
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws are
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral laws?
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on the OT,
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of little
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will. So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
I can understand this because my wife's cat. She gets the
message to stay off the furnature. And while anyone is around
she will stay off. But when we are away she will get on the table.
Yet, she gots the message, because when we return she
jumps off the table. We cannot explain why this is to her.
You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned, yet
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.
I don't see the point in debating this any more. It's obvious that you
believe that parts of the Bible are true and parts are false, yet you
refuse
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to admit this.
That is _your_ spin. You cannot dictate what I believe and what I do not.
The Old Covenant containing the law has been fulfilled fro Christanity.
Logic dictates that either:
1) The Bible is completely true.
2) The Bible is completely false, or
3) The Bible is partially true and partially false.

Which do you think it is?
Ronald Dean
2004-04-15 20:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
As I have already confessed, I'm no expert on the Old
Testament.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
So, why would you insist upon me making a declaration for
which
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
I am clearly unqualified. My opinion about the integrity of
the
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
revelations received by Moses may very well be wrong. So
based upon my opinion, I cannot in good conscience call
Moses a liar.
I don't know why you have this obssession. Could it be a
diversion: an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion that
the Old Testament has been superceded by the New as it
relates to the Christian?
I'm not trying to create a diversion, you are creating a
diversion.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
We
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
both agree that determining the author of the Mosaic laws does
not
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
depend on
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
whether or not these laws are still in effect.
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the
Bible
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to
accept
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were
commandments
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
from
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws are
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral laws?
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on the OT,
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of little
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will. So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
I can understand this because my wife's cat. She gets the
message to stay off the furnature. And while anyone is around
she will stay off. But when we are away she will get on the table.
Yet, she gots the message, because when we return she
jumps off the table. We cannot explain why this is to her.
You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned, yet
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.
I don't see the point in debating this any more. It's obvious that you
believe that parts of the Bible are true and parts are false, yet you
refuse
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to admit this.
That is _your_ spin. You cannot dictate what I believe and what I do not.
The Old Covenant containing the law has been fulfilled fro Christanity.
1) The Bible is completely true.
2) The Bible is completely false, or
3) The Bible is partially true and partially false.
Which do you think it is?
The third statement. I do not think that _everything_ in the Bible is
intended to be taken literally.
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-15 21:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
As I have already confessed, I'm no expert on the Old
Testament.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
So, why would you insist upon me making a declaration for
which
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
I am clearly unqualified. My opinion about the integrity of
the
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
revelations received by Moses may very well be wrong. So
based upon my opinion, I cannot in good conscience call
Moses a liar.
I don't know why you have this obssession. Could it be a
diversion: an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion that
the Old Testament has been superceded by the New as it
relates to the Christian?
I'm not trying to create a diversion, you are creating a
diversion.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
We
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
both agree that determining the author of the Mosaic laws does
not
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
depend on
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
whether or not these laws are still in effect.
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the
Bible
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to
accept
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were
commandments
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
from
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws
are
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral
laws?
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on the
OT,
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of
little
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will. So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
I can understand this because my wife's cat. She gets the
message to stay off the furnature. And while anyone is around
she will stay off. But when we are away she will get on the table.
Yet, she gots the message, because when we return she
jumps off the table. We cannot explain why this is to her.
You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned, yet
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.
I don't see the point in debating this any more. It's obvious that
you
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
believe that parts of the Bible are true and parts are false, yet you
refuse
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to admit this.
That is _your_ spin. You cannot dictate what I believe and what I do
not.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
The Old Covenant containing the law has been fulfilled fro
Christanity.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
1) The Bible is completely true.
2) The Bible is completely false, or
3) The Bible is partially true and partially false.
Which do you think it is?
The third statement. I do not think that _everything_ in the Bible is
intended to be taken literally.
Are all these Evil Bible Quotes that I post not supposed to be taken
literally? Why or why not?
Ronald Dean
2004-04-16 00:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
As I have already confessed, I'm no expert on the Old
Testament.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
So, why would you insist upon me making a declaration for
which
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
I am clearly unqualified. My opinion about the integrity
of
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
the
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
revelations received by Moses may very well be wrong. So
based upon my opinion, I cannot in good conscience call
Moses a liar.
I don't know why you have this obssession. Could it be a
diversion: an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion
that
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
the Old Testament has been superceded by the New as it
relates to the Christian?
I'm not trying to create a diversion, you are creating a
diversion.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
We
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
both agree that determining the author of the Mosaic laws
does
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
not
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
depend on
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
whether or not these laws are still in effect.
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though the
Bible
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to
accept
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were
commandments
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
from
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic laws
are
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral
laws?
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on the
OT,
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of
little
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will. So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
I can understand this because my wife's cat. She gets the
message to stay off the furnature. And while anyone is around
she will stay off. But when we are away she will get on the table.
Yet, she gots the message, because when we return she
jumps off the table. We cannot explain why this is to her.
You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned, yet
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.
I don't see the point in debating this any more. It's obvious that
you
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
believe that parts of the Bible are true and parts are false, yet
you
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
refuse
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to admit this.
That is _your_ spin. You cannot dictate what I believe and what I do
not.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
The Old Covenant containing the law has been fulfilled fro
Christanity.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
1) The Bible is completely true.
2) The Bible is completely false, or
3) The Bible is partially true and partially false.
Which do you think it is?
The third statement. I do not think that _everything_ in the Bible is
intended to be taken literally.
Are all these Evil Bible Quotes that I post not supposed to be taken
literally? Why or why not?
It depends; if it's the Old Testament, it cannot save anyone. So what
is the point in studing the OT? Except as backgrown.

Ron
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-04-16 12:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
As I have already confessed, I'm no expert on the Old
Testament.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
So, why would you insist upon me making a declaration
for
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
which
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
I am clearly unqualified. My opinion about the integrity
of
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
the
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
revelations received by Moses may very well be wrong. So
based upon my opinion, I cannot in good conscience call
Moses a liar.
I don't know why you have this obssession. Could it be a
diversion: an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion
that
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
the Old Testament has been superceded by the New as it
relates to the Christian?
I'm not trying to create a diversion, you are creating a
diversion.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
We
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
both agree that determining the author of the Mosaic laws
does
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
not
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
depend on
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
whether or not these laws are still in effect.
1) Many of the Mosaic laws are immoral.
2) The Mosaic laws were commandments from God.
3) Therefore, God made immoral laws.
If you think that premise #2 is not correct, even though
the
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Bible
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
says
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
it
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
is correct, then you need to explain why. Your refusal to
accept
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
obvious
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
logical results of your opinions reflects poorly on you.
Okay, Conditionally, premise # 2 is correct, they were
commandments
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
from
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Ronald Dean
God. So where do we go from here?
Then do you also accept premise #1 (that many of the Mosaic
laws
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
are
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
immoral) and the logical conclusion (#3) that God made immoral
laws?
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
In spite of the fact that, as I have stated, I am no expert on
the
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
OT,
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
without any special knowledge on the subject, yet you want an
expert opinion from me. As a novice my opinion on the OT is of
little
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
value.
All I can say is that Christ brought into the world a far better
understand of God's will. So this suggest that the old methods
were inferior. I believe the prophets were incapable of fully
comprehending God's message.
I can understand this because my wife's cat. She gets the
message to stay off the furnature. And while anyone is around
she will stay off. But when we are away she will get on the
table.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Yet, she gots the message, because when we return she
jumps off the table. We cannot explain why this is to her.
You refuse to accept the fact that the New Covenant
superceded the Old so far as Christians are concerned, yet
you have supplied no verses which contradict this position.
Neither have you negated the verses which gives evidence
of this. I'm convinced this demand of yours is nothing more
that a diversion to avoid facing up to this Biblical evidence;
which is the basis for New Testament Christianity.
I don't see the point in debating this any more. It's obvious
that
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
you
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
believe that parts of the Bible are true and parts are false, yet
you
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
refuse
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
to admit this.
That is _your_ spin. You cannot dictate what I believe and what I do
not.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
The Old Covenant containing the law has been fulfilled fro
Christanity.
Post by Ronald Dean
Post by Ronald Dean
1) The Bible is completely true.
2) The Bible is completely false, or
3) The Bible is partially true and partially false.
Which do you think it is?
The third statement. I do not think that _everything_ in the Bible is
intended to be taken literally.
Are all these Evil Bible Quotes that I post not supposed to be taken
literally? Why or why not?
It depends; if it's the Old Testament, it cannot save anyone. So what
is the point in studing the OT? Except as backgrown.
I didn't ask you if the OT could save anyone. I asked if these Evil Bible
Quotes that I post are supposed to be taken literally? Why or why not?
Phÿltêr
2004-04-16 13:19:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald Dean
It depends; if it's the Old Testament, it cannot save anyone. So what
is the point in studing the OT? Except as backgrown.
"backgrown"????? Would you be inferring "background"???
Come on, make an effort...
--
Phÿltêr
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://afjc.clickhalah.com/forum/index.php
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
stoney
2004-04-09 14:16:13 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 06:33:43 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<***@Here.com>, Message ID: <***@adelphia.com>
wrote in alt.atheism;

(snip)

Somewhere in the OT there's a spot where 'god' says something along the
lines of; "I almost regret the inequities I'm going to inflict on [my
creations]. As I recall, it's just before something on the positive
side. I stumbled over the dang thing once and haven't been able to find
it again. Any ideas?



Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...