Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Maybe God has other plans for these people.
>
> Burning forever in eternal unbaptized unsaved torment, last I heard.

baptism on Jesus time, and by evangelicals understanding, is to be taken at a
later age, when people are conscious of what it means.  Baptism at an early age
like the catholics do doesn't mean much.  Besides, righteous people who have not
heard the Word of God are not going to Hell.  That includes the children dying
at an early age, old pagan cultures from before the covenant and people who to
this day have not yet heard of JHVH and Jesus.

People who have heard but remain unconvinced... well, perhaps after spending
some time on Purgatory they change their minds? :)

Post a reply to this message

Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> I'm not an atheist, but I don't beleive that there is a "God".

search for the meaning of the prefix "a" and root "theo"

> There are still traces from all Roman census. Aparently, Jesus don't figure in
> those census...

there are *traces* of it?  and Jesus, who was born hidden from the Empire,
doesn't figure in them?  alright...

> > 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.

yes, as the other names that appear in the documentary, found in the same family
tomb.  See the statistics section of the documentary...

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 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.

That's your problem.  I was talking about the pagan peoples from before the
covenant and the Word being spread:  they couldn't know it better.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> 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.

JHVH didn't go on kidnapping Hebrew's children to suck their blood.  He made a
covenant with the Hebrews and then with all humanity through Jesus death.  JHVH
isn't malevolent towards his children, but can help them overcome their/His
enemies.  JHVH is not sadistic because sadism is a weakness of men.  JHVH just
demands faith, not sacrifices.  The ones who ally themselves with false gods or
fallen angels are building their own ruin by allowing evil in their hearts...

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Then I'll ask the Goddess to enlighten you so that you may understand.

God or Goddess, it's just a human term for a being beyond the physical, sexual
world...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:13:29 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Joel Yliluoma wrote:
> > and this makes me believe that God's reasoning abilities
> > are significantly higher than that of any of us.
>
> I'm curious what part of the bible makes you think that.

Hmm. Let's just say that I don't think an idiot could design
an universe like this :)


>> If I understand correctly, you are referring to the "tree of good and evil"
>> and interpreting that the tree gave the human powers of understanding good
>> and evil equalling that of God.
>
> Yes. Or, at least, that I have knowledge of the difference between good 
> and evil, so when I see evil, I am not particularly wrong about whether 
> it's really good.
>
> Or are you telling me that starving babies in Africa isn't a bad thing? 
> Cancer is really good in disguise? Lynching blacks is really *good* for 
> them? This is "the best of all possible worlds" argument - since evil 
> exists, and God isn't evil, then it must be the case that the amount of 
> evil in the world is the minimum amount it's possible to have.

The thing about arguments like that, is that they are often quite
shortsighted.
I mean no offense and don't try to imply anything, but stupid people
make that kind of arguments all the time. Also politicians who try
to influence stupid people.

For example, opposition to technology that allows the government to
censor internet sites is easily blamed by claiming that the opponents
are defending pedophiles and all the ugly stuff found in the Internet.
Such arguments are completely oblivious to the actual reasons of the
opposition, such as the fact that such censorship doesn't help preventing
the actual problem, and that it brings a lot of other problems with it.
Attempts to justify those facts will fall to deaf ears and be countered
with the blanket claim "so you support child pornography".

This is just an example. The point is, valid reasons may often exist
beyond the immediate and obvious interpretations, even if you don't
see them.

-- 
Joel Yliluoma - http://iki.fi/bisqwit/

Post a reply to this message

nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/12 06:12:
> Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>> In other words, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, why does his
>> planning suck?
> 
> His planning doesn't suck.  How can you say that when you don't even know it?
> 
>> If Evil is outside of God's control, then God is not omnipotent. If he
>> simply does not stop evil, but allows it to happen when he could act to
>> stop it, then he is not Good. And if he can not interact with us to stop
>> it, then why get upset that some people choose not to believe in
>> something that can not even interact with this existence?
> 
> enough with Epicurus.  He didn't knew God's plans either.  He presumes life =
> good, death = bad; which is not necessarily right in all cases.  I'm not saying
> this as justification for genocides committed by men's hands, but applying it to
> tragedies out of men's control.  Also, it may take time,  but justice is
> eventually made.  Epicurus talked as if suffering was continuous on the same
> victims no matter what and the criminous was allowed a life of happiness
> thereafter.  Most criminous against humanity have had some terrible deaths or
> tragedies in their families or mental illness in the last days or whatever.
> Hitler suicided,  his partner Goebbels killed his 6 children and suicided,
> Saddam saw his 2 sons die and then was eventually executed.  God directly
> influences this world via men's actions too.
Suicide is self inflicted punishment, "God" have nothing to do.
Most criminals against humanity started with some sort of mental illness, so a 
mental illness in the end of ther lives is normal. Still no "godly" 
interventions here.
Most of those tragedies are: 1 self inflicted, or 2 the doing of some peoples.
Sadam's childs death was purely human caused. Still NO "godly" influences.
> 
> Besides, non-believers will say miracles such as healing due to prayer are
> actually a matter of chance, so I don't see the relevance of them trying to
> find proof of God's interactions in the world when every said interaction can
> be ultimately traced to quantum fluctuations, which IMO is precisely God's way
> of interacting with the physical world...
> 
> 
Statistics show that when you tell someone at the ospital that you will pray for 
him to help him get better, his chances of dying actualy INCREASE!

As I sayd before: those who WANT to place "God" interventions will grasp at just 
about any straw to prove ther point, even at illusionary straws... If needed, 
they will twist some facts, obliterate others and invent a few.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Celebrate Hannibal Day this year.  Take an elephant to lunch.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:50:51 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> nemesis wrote:
>> God is not hiding under X or Y, it's everywhere for people with eyes to  
>> see and
>> ears to hear.
>
> And if you disagree, you're stupid, ignorant, and about to be punished  
> forever in eternal flames!  And that's a *good* thing!

Uh-uh no punishment allowed see -

God is infinite;
God is love;
God is merciful;
Therefore God is infinitely merciful and loving;
Therefore God will show love and mercy to any sinners that come before Him;
Therefore God cannot punish them;
Therefore there is no Hell.

;-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/12 06:47:
> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> I'm not an atheist, but I don't beleive that there is a "God".
> 
> search for the meaning of the prefix "a" and root "theo"
> 
>> There are still traces from all Roman census. Aparently, Jesus don't figure in
>> those census...
> 
> there are *traces* of it?  and Jesus, who was born hidden from the Empire,
> doesn't figure in them?  alright...
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> yes, as the other names that appear in the documentary, found in the same family
> tomb.  See the statistics section of the documentary...
> 
> 
If you concider that the first writings about Jesus life where writen AT LEAST 
50 years after his passing.
If you consider that there are absolutely no records about Jesus exept in the bible.
You have the right to think that the "Jesus" from the bible may only be a 
fictuous character... And that the whole of the new testament may be somewhat 
like a modern novel, maybe inspired by some real events.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you look at waterfalls, dust, 
rain, snow, etc, and think: "If only I had a fractalized, vector based 
particle-system modeler with collision detection!"

Post a reply to this message

nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/12 07:04:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Then I'll ask the Goddess to enlighten you so that you may understand.
> 
> God or Goddess, it's just a human term for a being beyond the physical, sexual
> world...
> 
> 
A God is male.
A Goddess is female.

They may be placed beyong the physical world by the men who invented them, but 
they definitely are NOT beyong the sexual world!

In my view, ALL Gods are human inventions. The Jewish god is human invention.
The Christian god is human invention.
The Muslim god is human invention.
All the other gods we can find in human History and histories are all human 
inventions, every last one, bar none.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.

Post a reply to this message