nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/11 00:49:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>> Its almost a sign
>> of fundamental insanity for someone to suggest that this *hasn't*
>> distorted both the interpretation of historical facts that *are* in
>> evidence, and to strongly imply why some people would much rather
>> imagine ones that have *never* been in evidence, rather than admit that,
>> once again, the churches interpretation is the one that is badly out of
>> sync of reality.
> 
> are all atheists really this boring?  That last sentence was pretty long, just
> as the hundreds of them before.  I had to skip and lost track.  sorry...
I'm not an atheist, but I don't beleive that there is a "God".
> 
> you sound like Fox Mulder.  you know:  "I want to believe".  Because you're
> obsessed in trying to find physical proofs of Jesus existence.
> 
> forget it:  he came as a humble man, too insignificant for the ones in power,
> but sufficiently of an agitator to receive death penalty... nothing too shabby
> to figure in official records...
Acording to the Nativity, Jesus was born during a Roman census, the IVth or Vth 
census, the others been to off the date of year I AD. So, he MUST be registered 
in one of those two census. In ALL Roman census, every resident of the Empire 
war obligated to register himself as well as any child, spouse and slave under 
his autority. Joseph was in Bethlem precisely, and uniquely, for the census. 
There are still traces from all Roman census. Aparently, Jesus don't figure in 
those census...
The first of the two was held around 50BC and the second around 12 AD. That mean 
that the monk who set the year 1 was wrong.
> 
> though I find it funny you don't mention the James Cameron documentary about
> Jesus tomb...
> 
> 
It should be noted that the name "Jesus" was a prety common one in that time.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
If you're ever about to be mugged by a couple of clowns, don't hesitate - go for 
the juggler.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:07:12 -0500, nemesis wrote:

>  the pagans just didn't know any better.

Um, excuse me, used to be a practicing Pagan here.  Raised Lutheran 
first, opted for Paganism, now closer to atheism.

Don't presume to tell me I don't know any better, please.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:47:27 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Assuming the soul does exist,
> 
> Of course it does. Just not as something that God has to deal with.

I don't know that it does - is there evidence/proof to suggest that it 
does?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:31:43 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Then you'll have an idea of what it's like to be on the receiving end
>> of "spiritual" guidance that is unwelcome and unwanted.  Fair enough?
> 
> geez!  If you wanted to get a "fuck you!" instead of "bless you" you
> could've asked for it from the beginning.  what a fucked up world!

You misunderstand; you're offering a prayer, which is a religious ritual, 
for my soul.  As a practicing Pagan, I wouldn't dare have performed any 
sort of ritual on you - Darren talks about the hubris of some of your 
statements, and I have to say, I was quite shocked to see you suggest 
that you might perform a ritual on my soul without my permission.

> BTW, I'm ok with tarot or other oracles, like astrology or the I-Ching. 
> I don't think it's satan at work, just the correlation of all things and
> personal interpretation by means of a few man-made rules... they just
> present you paths, you decide your way.

FWIW, I don't consider Tarot to be an "oracle"; it's a way of looking at 
a problem and of organizing your thoughts around a decision.  Or at least 
that's how I look at it and how I use it (when I do).

But some people consider it to be a religious ritual, so of course I 
would never perform a "reading" without someone's permission; and because 
of the way I use it personally, my reading probably would not have any 
value to a third party anyways, so I wouldn't likely start down that road 
anyways; the interpretations are far, far too personal for a third party 
to do them for you.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:59:57 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> no, I don't understand how wishing for one's well-being is the same as
> cursing them.  You don't need to believe in what I believe to benefit
> from best wishes.

"Best wishes" is one thing; praying to your god for my soul's well being 
is presuming that I want your god to be looking after my well being.

I think it's pretty well established that I don't.  And I'm not alone in 
that.

> I can understand it, though, in the light of we living in a fucked up,
> imoral world.  People without directions in their lifes tend to see
> everything as gray rather than black and white.  it's all the same for
> them, so not surprising at all...

You assume that anyone who doesn't believe as you do has no direction.  I 
have a pretty good sense of direction for my life, thankyouverymuch.

That said, everything is not black and white - the world is shades of 
grey.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:10:41 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> from wikipedia:
> "In Mesopotamian mythology Lamashtu (Sumerian Dimme) was a female demon,
> monster, malevolent goddess or demigoddess that menaced women during
> childbirth and, if possible, kidnapped children while they were
> breastfeeding, she would gnaw on their bones and suck their blood, as
> well as being charged with a number of other evil deeds."
> 
> yes, clearly JHVH's ways.  fucked up world twisting fucked up minds, I
> tell you.

Hmmm, shall we look at the plagues that JHVH has visited on the world?  
The flood?  Yes, he certainly is benevolent, isn't he?

The God of the OT was IMHO quite sadistic.  If he/she/it exists, they're 
not exactly a being that I want looking out for my best interests.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:42:27 -0500, nemesis wrote:

>> Do you begin to see why some people take your prayers as a "fuck you"?
> 
> no.

Then I'll ask the Goddess to enlighten you so that you may understand.

Maybe that will help you see the error of your ways.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:35:09 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> I can't steal an HDTV and PS3 from store by God's law.  Neither can Jim,
> by men's law.  so much for free will, will to do anything that comes to
> our sinful minds...

Wrong, we both have the ability to do that.  But part of free will is 
living with the consequences of our actions.

By your rules, you've broken one of God's commandments, and as such will 
spend an eternity in pain and torture.

Me, I'd go to court, get a fine, maybe serve probation for a first 
offense.

You don't really seem to grasp what "free will" is very well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:05:19 +0100, andrel wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:56:24 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>>  First you
>>> don't know for sure that Jim is completely heterosexual,
>> 
>> Well, *I*'m sure about that. :-)
> Possibly, but you are the only one. I can not even be sure that you are
> male. Are you? No don't bother answering, there is no way I can check
> your answer anyway. BTW I assumed you are human, but when I think about
> it, I can not even be sure of that. Following the reasoning of Descartes
> I might end up proving God exists from this, but ATM I can not remember
> how he did it.

Well, my wife is also certain of it. :-)

But of course, you cannot see what I see because you see what I see; you 
cannot know what I know because you know what you know. :-)

>>> second these
>>> women (and his boss) might have free will too (assuming such a thing
>>> exists  ). This might be perceived as slightly sexist.
>> 
>> Actually, my boss, my boss' boss, and my boss' boss' boss, are all
>> female.
>> 
> Ah, so you do have several women. Or actually, they have you, but that
> is mere detail.

LOL, I might have to share that with my boss' boss sometime.  She'd see 
the humour in it. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:23:34 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> following the Adamsian thinking, it seems indeed He is God!  Because
> He's trying His best to hide evidence of His existence by denying it in
> a newsgroups! :))

Damn.  I've been found out. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message