A fracas in Alt.Atheism

I left the newsgroups and forgot about them for most of a decade. Then, out of curiosity, I came back in 2001 to see if alt.atheism had changed any. It had not. I added to the sound and fury for a while, posting the messages you see below, but soon gave up and left again.

This sequence of postings is probably the last time I got really involved in an online debate about "God". In this period, I came to the realization that the sound and fury of alt.atheism was masturbatory in nature, as were most of the endlessly contentious topics it covered. People just argued them to feel good and waste time. I admit to being just as cocky as everyone else while I posted there, and that I had a religious bone to pick. I was annoyed by what I saw as Christianity's desire to manipulate, frighten, and control me.

To put it bluntly, I don't give a crap about it any more. The ideological exploration I made is thorough enough, and in my personal life it has hardly been challenged - instead, the Christians I have met have politely kept their beliefs to themselves, and I have had no reason to defend myself as in the messages below. When the topic of "God" or a spirit world has come up, debate has been friendly and respectful. Perhaps if I got into more trouble -- moved to a chateau in Mississippi and started handing out manifestos for example -- these ideas would come in handy. But I have no desire to proselytize, beyond placing what I wrote online as a reference and a resource for others.

You may find some of these dialogues interesting. Perhaps they cover ideas that you're surprised people are still arguing about. Feel free to cite them in your high-school essays.

Pardon me. This is my first post anywhere in years.

"Michael" <villagechief@optushome.com.au> wrote

You know you can't prove the non-existance of God deductively, and inductively you can come up with as many "just-so" stories as you wish. You have a half arguement. One that is not provable - you cannot therefore be a positive athiest...this is wishful thinking (even if you are correct), it is merely hope that you are correct.

But this is all tied in with how I see the world... Sure, I know I cannot prove the non-existence of God deductively, but I also cannot prove the non-existence of green kangaroos deductively. No matter how I scour the world they could always be standing right behind my back.

However, a lack of green kangaroos in my life has not been significant cause for attention. It's not like there's a box labeled "technicolor marsupials" sitting in my living room with the lid open. If there was, I would start to wonder if perhaps there's a kangaroo wandering around my house that I may not have seen. But there's no empty box.

To me, it's the same thing with God, as Christians tend to define "him". There's no box in my living room labeled "Jesus", with the lid open, and the water in the sink isn't wine, and the mold in the shower hasn't been turned into bread, and there aren't any mysterious phone calls from pilgrims on my answering machine. These facts certainly don't prove the non-existence of Jesus or God, but they parallel a greater trend in my personal experience: The universe functions fine without God anywhere in the picture. So, why should I waste my time trying to pound a square peg into a round hole? (god into the universe)

It's been much more sensible for me to assume that God, as Christians tend to define "him", just doesn't exist. Unless someone can convince me that people are born with an innate instinctive predisposition towards positive atheism or positive theism, then I am ready to conclude that there is no stronger argument necessary than the one I have formed. Since I have considered all of what I have experienced and not experienced in my lifetime, and built a strong belief from it, I can honestly say that I am a positive atheist for all sensible usage of the term.

Of course, any belief, whether in or against the existence of something not directly observable, could be labeled "wishful thinking", as you have done. You could claim that no matter how many times I see the sun come up, my belief that it will rise tomorrow is still only "wishful thinking", until I actually see it rise.

And so we move on to the next point:

JH, can also come up with the inductive reasoned evidences. JH can also come up with evidence based on predictions. They have occured in the past, some are predicted to occur in the future. You reject the historically verifiable evidence of the past, and may not live to see the ones predicted for the future. What will you do if you one day find out God does exist, and all your hoping was misplaced?

Evidence does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in a vast universe, in which many laws of statistical probability have been found to operate. When evidence is evaluated, statistics is often involved. My belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on VERY STRONG EVIDENCE that I have personally observed over my entire life.

I have read many books in my life so far. I will read many more. The Bible, assembled from bits and pieces, and poorly translated into english, was a hard read. I admit, I got bored after struggling with it intensely for a few months. I wanted to see what the fuss was about.

Frankly, now that I have seen it's content for myself, I can't understand how anyone could make a sensible, reasoned prediction about the future with it, with any more veracity than if they had used a top-hat full of paper scraps. Both seem just as organized, and equally connected with my life. And yes, I am slamming the Bible. I am perfectly entitled to my subjective opinion of the quality of what I consider to be, at best, a historical document, and at worst, toilet paper. Long boring stories about morons learning hard lessons and everyone getting smitten or killed, and barbaric rules that contradict a lot of my moral sensibilities. I found no useful predictions about the future. Especially when numerical dates were involved. As a result, I have developed a rather critical view of people who attempt to make such predictions, or use them in an argument. Been there, done that.

So let me address Mister JH directly with this: Why should I listen to you, telling me about dead people who may or may not have made predictions based on how you interpret their quoted and badly translated words in the Bible? Why should I listen to you, telling me about predictions that I will not live to verify? Your literally paper-thin evidence carries no weight in the context of the rest of my world, which hangs together just fine with or without proof of your God, thank you very much. There is no, I repeat, there is NO empty box in my living room labeled "God" with the lid open. I don't need to wonder where he is. I am too busy dealing with important things, like taking care of myself, and taking care of the people I love.

I used to sit around wondering to myself: What if, one day, I came home and suddenly discovered a big crate from Australia labeled "Fragile: GOD" on the side? I would probably be hard-pressed to believe that it wasn't some practical joke, but if I set that aside, and opened the lid, and the Christian God popped up and asked for back taxes in belief, what would I do?

I would be like Abou-Ben Adam, and ask God to write me in his book as "one who loved his fellow men".

And if he refused, I would tell him to go to hell. Because that should bloody well be enough to gain stead in the afterlife, by cracky.

In the meantime I live by that principle anyway, simply because it makes social and evolutionary and logical and emotional sense for me to do so. So the Christian God has nothing to do with my moral behavior.

I tried church, too. Twice, at two very different times in my life. Once as a child, and once in my twenties. As a kid I found it alternately frightening and dull. As a young adult I discovered, with great pleasure, that the clergy and the people who went to church in my area were nice people, who sincerely cared about the community and welcomed all comers, and preached tolerance and understanding in basic friendly sermons. It was a relief to observe that some congregations actually listened to what Jesus generally meant, instead of senselessley flogging what some syphilitic royal translator happened to stamp in linotype centuries ago. It was also a lot of fun to sing the songs, half of which were written by local devotees.

But I already had a social life, and one day I noticed that I was the ONLY twenty-something in the entire Sunday service. Plus, the proceedings were, well, too dogmatic for my taste. I already had scruples, and I wasn't getting any younger standing around singing about them.

My preacher never made a prediction from the Bible. Not a single one. You morons should learn from his example, and concentrate on more important things. A true Christian should not have to go to war with the predictive power of scientific theory. A true Christian has more important things to do.

Spreading your religion does not mean trying to con people into taking the Bible literally. Spreading your religion means working to convince people to act in accordance with the good principles it has embraced. The matter of their faith should be left up to them, and in good time your diligence will win their hearts. I can assure you that all this Plato-inspired boolean crap will only alienate you.

Ah, how convenient! Here's an example!

The very fact that you declare yourself to be a positive atheist, demonstrates that you are inwardly biased against any potential evidence. As you pointed out, you cannot prove there is no God deductively, yet you hold to your belief just as strongly as JH holds his/hers. For the benefit of other readers: science develops theories through inductive logic and then tests theories by generating predictions through deductive logic and verifying empirically those predictions.

What does such a proof have to do with anything? Am I incorrect in assuming that one's belief in God is appropriately a matter of faith? If it is not, that must mean that we have something more than faith to go on. Well, we define faith as a belief in something despite a lack of evidence. So there must be evidence somewhere that either proves or disproves the existence of the Christian God, absolutely.

But here's the problem: Some people think that the evidence of God's existence is everywhere, since they feel that the only force that could have created our universe is their God. We have trees and air and feet and chicken-pot-pie, and so by gradeschool boolean thinking, God must exist to have made it all.

Then other people take this same evidence and examine it further, and notice how very self-perpetuating a lot of our universe seems to be, all the way back to a point of origin that may or may not be a big loop, or a round globe where infinite time is completely exchanged for zero space, according to the theory of relativity - making it only seem like a border because people have a fallacious linear concept of time. And to explain our presence in the universe, these people just think like Carl Sagan did, and say: "Well, if we weren't around, there'd be nobody to notice that, would there? So of course we're around. Duh!"

Given that one could draw a conclusion either way, based on evidence that consists of no less than the sum total of the entire bloody universe, I ask once again: What does such a proof have to do with anything? What place does logical proof have when the basis of that proof, EVIDENCE, cannot be agreed upon? So belief (or not) in God remains a matter of faith.

In this respect, agnosticism seems sensible but it mostly misses the point. To be agnostic is to believe that the ultimate mystery of the universe is unknowable -- but to an aeheist OR a theist, that fact is irrelevant, because, as stated, it's a freaking matter of faith, and a lack of absolute knowledge is par for the freaking course. By more modern usage, agnostics in this society are more likely to decry the practice of faith in general, since it seems to them that faith is irrational, and it's a waste of time to pursue irrational arguments.

At present, that is closest to where I stand. I have decided that the adoption of a basic faith in my soul is not necessary, because I have plenty of concrete and inspiring evidence from which to build my morality and pursuits. I don't need to base my life on faith, because I have concluded for a fact that it is worth living for it's own sake. I also don't need faith to feel a sense of awe or wonder, I am already in awe of what I directly observe around me. People are beautiful, food tastes great, and I am alive. Q.E.D. Just because you have an irrational beef with God, or an insidious dependence on "him", you can't conclude that I feel just as awful as you do, or that I need to be "saved" from what you naiively label an "empty" or "meaningless" existence.

JH does have the advantage that the Bible makes several predictions about the future, in which case, assuming you were open to a longer time-frame, deductive logic based on the Bible may work because the predictions may come true. If they do, you are clearly in the wrong. On that note: the very fact that JH obviously declares him/herself to be a positive theist simply means that (s)he has accepted the many historical evidences as described in the Bible of which their histocracy has been verified by external evidences: this is commonly known as deductive logic as you would be aware. Someone made a prediction (based of course on what God had told them - thereby the general theorem of God is in place) which came true - hence evidence that God exists. That it occured in the distant past does not disqualify it as evidence. That you reject certain evidences does not mean that it is not true, it just means you don't believe it.

What the hell are you talking about?

Are you trying to tell me that JH believes in God because a book exists that contains TRANSLATED SECOND-HAND accounts of private conversations between God and dead people, which speak of events that ALSO HAPPENED IN THE PAST, to a bunch of dead people who are not around to tell me in their own words what happened?? OR which speak of events that MAAAAAAAYYY happen SOMEDAY ?!

I don't care what kind of [expletive] logic you apply to this "evidence", or how irrefutable said logic is, your "evidence" is still about as tangible as a fart in the wind.

Why am I responding to this stupid post? Why am I bothering to read this stupid newsgroup at all? I've been back in usenet for only an hour, and already I'm starting to get frustrated.

"That you reject certain evidences does not mean that it is not true, it just means you don't believe it."

No freaking [expletive] [expletive], sherlock. I also reject the zit on the end of my nose as proof that there are gerbils throwing a LAN party in my attic. There's still a zit on my nose. So the [expletive] what?

Look at the histocracy of the predictions. You favour inductive logic because you can hold any evidence and posulate a reason for it. To verify it, you need deduction. You know that no evidence based on deductive reasoning can ever exist to prove the non-existence of God as you previously pointed out. This however simply means that when taken in isolation, you can virtually NEVER be proved wrong. The ONLY way you can be proved wrong, is for JH (or someone else) to make many predictions based on the theorem of God and that every prediciton comes true. Given that JH is unlikely to do that, you, as most aeheists do, therefore feel perfectly qualified to say that there is none. What you are in effect doing, is saying that by lack of deductive evidence acceptable to you regarding the existence of God, there is no God. Therefore, when evidence comes along, you feel perfectly at liberty to interpret that evidence based on your presuppositions (that is, the exclusion of God from every aspect of life), hence you will never accept evidence because you have precluded all possibilities. You say that since God does not exist, there must be some other explanation. You then think up possible explanations, find one that you feel conforable with. Over time you collect a variety of "explanations" that "disprove" the existence of God, based on the fact that you have another possible explanation. You therefore reinforce in you mind over time, that there is no evidence and there never will be evidence for the existence of God, because you can always come up with another explanation. You know as well as I do that this is also known as wishful thinking.

So this is what other people in this newsgroup mean by "accusing your detractors as being intellectually dishonest". To paraphrase, you're whining that it's unfair that I believe the sun will come up tomorrow, just because it has come up every morning for my entire life. "Ooooh, give those eternal-night people a chance, please, it's so wrong of you not to!" *snicker*

God encourages deductive reasoning (Deuteronomy 18:22) to prove His existence. I encourage you to take a fresh look at the histocracy of the events in the Bible, the predictions and the outcomes. What will you say, if one day you find that your hope was unfounded and that God does exist, and demands an account?

See above. And I've already read that freaking passage, and God's argument is based entirely on the accuracy of the Bible as a predictive force. That's what he demands we apply deductive reasoning to. In my not-so-humble opinion, a top-hat full of fortune cookies does a better job making predictions than the Bible. In fact, most good science fiction I've read does a better job predicting the future than the Bible.

By the way, atheist is not spelled "athiest", and existence is not spelled "existance".

-g

"taichi" <taichi@eastwind.net> wrote in <5B320D8F67E42A68.3D3B24B65B52FA1D.2139DD0AD03B53F8@lp.airnews.net>:

"garote" <garrett@motionspamsucks.com> wrote in message news:Xns9062138408CDFgarrettmotioncom@129.250.35.102... Puck Greenman wrote in <3g6dat0qajrjfcp07gs95i9mni6t4lihiu@4ax.com>: On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:37:00 -0000, "taichi" <taichi@eastwind.net> wrote: Greetings Karl, God no longer does proofs. ........... There is evidence of a creator all around you. Produce it. See, this is the problem we always come up against. Someone says 'produce it', and the zealot points at any old thing, like a rock, or a chair. Here's how it goes: When you say: "Why, that's a chair. Men made that." They say: "Ah, but who made the wood?" You say: "A tree!" Then they get all haughty, and say: "Ah, but who planted

.... etc ...

Greetings Garote, that is an interesting tale. It kind of reminds me of Alice in wonderland. It is totally inconsistent with normal conversation or rational thinking. serious questions are given fallacious answers. The fact of the matter is that we exist in a created phenomena.

How it was created, and the reasons for that creation, are as varied as the day is long. I could say that the phenomena of the earth is created by the gravitational compression of exploded stars, but that's obviously not the same creative force you're speaking of.

there are laws of nature and systems of design and function that provides a rational physical reality. People are the way they are because it is the way they were intended to be.

That's a nonsense answer. A rose is a rose is a rose and blah blah blah. It states nothing, and does not interest nor enlighten me. That there are laws of nature and systems of design, instead of angry gods, is a product of several centuries of enlightened thinking. It's part of the way modern people think. And that distinction is very important, and also very independent of whatever phenomena we happen to exist in.

They are not some random accident. If you were not designed to think, you would not be able to think any more than a computer would not compute unless it was designed to compute.

You have an unfortunately incomplete view of the universe if you think that things only come into existence by "design". Either that or you have a ridiculous definition of the word "design", one that groups the architects' carefully balanced lines, and the brainless churning of water on rock, under the same heading. An architect designs a house. I'll agree to that. But waves on rock do not "design" the seashore.

People's religion is important to them. What they believe is consistent with what they understand.

A rose is a rose is blah blah blah.

Proofs are for chemistry and physics and even those proofs are sometimes found to be wrong. As far as evolution is concerned, it has gross errors. Adaptation is a rational phenomena not a random mutation.

Evolution doesn't seem to have any gross errors as far as I can tell. In fact, it seems a lot more sound than the hypothesis that everything was poofed into existence by mystical forces.

People are designed to function in their environment and their environment is designed to meet there needs.

Sometimes I think people live their lives so deeply cradled in human technology these days that they have become too narrow-minded to realize the difference between something that was designed, and something that was merely created. The roads you drive on, the clothes you wear, the meals you eat, the words you read, the music you hear -- all those things were designed in a legitimate sense. BY HUMANS. But to claim that all these accomplishments are no different than water beating on rock is to dangerously underappreciate the power that humans have over one another.

If you have rational systems, function and design you have an entity that creates that phenomena. That is where all the evidence points. Dave

You're very crass indeed if you think the entire universe was created by humans. That's what you seem to be implying.

-g

"Dana" <dana.raffaniello@gci.net> wrote in <tb0f3arlhugka4@corp.supernews.com>:

Ward Stewart <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message > This particular delusion is exceedingly irksome -- as a matter of human right it would not matter IF sexual orientation was a choice or not. In this context, "choice" is as irrelevant as one's choice to be either a Christian or a Jew. But here is where you are wrong. Homosexuality is a choice that people make. And it is a choice that has never been raised to the level that it needs constitutional protection. Your side has never proved that you are disadvantaged, or a legit minority, or that you are being discriminated against. That people do not approve of your sexual habits is what you want to change. You want to force acceptance of your behavior on a public that would rather not accept your behavior.

An age ago I met a gorgeous woman. One of the things she told me was that she was confused about her sexuality. After about five months we had fallen very deeply in love. She said that I was the kindest, smartest, most affectionate and enjoyable person she had ever been with. She felt safe, relaxed, and happy around me, and we weathered bad times together and cried in each others' arms, and everyone we knew remarked at the love we radiated together. It all fell apart, however, after two years. She said she wanted to marry me and raise a family with me, and nobody else, but there was one immense problem. She still felt sexually attracted to other women, and only indifferent about men. Oh, we kissed and hugged, and touched all the time, and wrestled, and she loved it when she closed her eyes and I cupped her breasts and gave her oral orgasms (she was delicious). But she only found lust in the touch of another woman. She had no lust for men. Any men. And so, painfully, horribly, over a year, we broke up. She cried a thousand tears and pounded the wall, driven mad by the thought that I would be having children with some other woman some day, some woman who enjoyed sex, who enjoyed men in the way she couldn't. I cried too, because the perfect relationship we had nurtured, that neither of us wanted to end, had been rendered worthless by sexual incompatibility. By something that was NOT a choice. She convinced herself that it was all her fault, that she was damaged, that she would never be happy, because all she had known for years was the secure arms of men, and she couldn't feel lust for them, couldn't make them happy in the way they deserved. She was on the verge of suicide for a while. I supported her as much as she needed, and encouraged her to meet women, and helped her to feel better for herself. Primarily the journey towards self-acceptance has been her own. I still love her, and have never met anyone as warm and genuinely caring as she is, since then. I am moving on, but it was a hard lesson and a bitter pill.

So don't you give me any crap about homosexuality being a choice. It may be for some people, but for others, it is NOT.

As for the "your side has never proved that you are disadvantaged", you're as blind as a bat. Marriage law does not cover a same-sex union even if it is for the purpose of raising children. That's a pretty freaking obvious federally established disadvantage. When the woman I used to be with finds another woman, and wants to start a family, she should not be denied her fair share just because you priggish little bible-whacking yahoos squirm at the thought of a girlie touching a girlie in the privacy of her own home. It's none of your damn business. You want to impoverish certain children because of your self-centered and bigoted garbage attitudes, and I won't stand for it.

Same-Sex "Marriage": Should America Allow "Gay Rights" Activists to Cross The Last Cultural Frontier? Anton N. Marco

(a lot of vitriol and fury snipped)

-g

euraljones@aol.comnojunk (EJ) wrote in <20010311094207.12940.00000614@ng-df1.aol.com>:

Subject: Re: The Bible Says that Jesus was a coward From: garrett@motionspamsucks.com (garote) I've got some shocking news for you. Jesus wasn't a white guy. prove it.

*giggle*

Yes, all of those pictures were painted without a model. All of them. Jesus never posed for a single painting. You know that famous painting, the Last Supper? With Jesus "in it"? That was painted by some guy looooong after Jesus That's not what Jesus told me when I saw Him. He has appeared to many artists since He has risen from the dead and has even modeled for them. The Bible says that Jesus also appeared to many other people after He rose from the dead. You're right! Those pictures were not painted until many years after Jesus had already died and rose again. You're not listening.

*chortle*

You know, if you have connections and pay a lot of money, you can go and see that picture. Not some photocopy, but the original painting. If you're REALLY well connected, you can even perform a carbon-dating experiment on a little scrap of it. And I'm absolutely sure that's what you've done and you swallowed their bullshit!! I wouldn't need carbon dating. I never said there were any pictures painted of Jesus when he walked the earth. That doesn't mean he never Modeled for them. Those people who painted those pictures are people who have seen Jesus AFTER He rose from the dead. Get It!!!

*snort* giggle laugh

Perform it on some other stuff, so you can be certain that it works right. You'll observe that that picture is just not old enough for Jesus to have posed in it. Please pay attention this time. If I've seen Him and the Bible says he also appeared to others, then I can also be sure that he has posed for paintings. Jesus IS NOT DEAD!!

*SZkKZNzknzknzk BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA HA HAH AHAH AHAHAA* *hee heee*

Sorry, I couldn't hold it back any more. You are a very funny little weenie.

What do you DO for a living?

Consider the following about Jesus. If he lived at all, he resided in an area that is now called Israel (you gotta slow the world down for people like EJ).

The people who lived in this area were not 'white' in the same way you view Europeans. They were (and are) olive skinned and had (have) dark hair. While there are exceptions, most people in this region of the world share this trait.

There is plenty of evidence that the first Christian believers drew pictures of Jesus that looked just like the people who populate the present state of Israel.....

... you dumbass.

-g (With thanks to Geo, Atheist #15)

euraljones@aol.comnojunk (EJ) wrote in <20010304195010.11199.00000415@ng-xa1.aol.com>:

Fossil records, Who wrote the "records"? gods? or fallible men? embryology, carbon dating, genome analysis, cellular protein dating, etc, etc. Would you like me to pull out my Bio book and list all of them? Ok, pull it out. Who wrote your "book"? Aren't the "atheists" the ones that tell us we can't accept the Bible as infallable truths because it was written by imperfect infallibale men? What makes the writers of your "Bio book" who have been caled "scientists" or "geniouses" less liars than the lying writers of the Bible who are called "prophets" ?

Look. I'll spell it out for you really slow and clear so you can understand it. If you don't at least acknowledge that you've tried, or show some kind of progress, I'm just going to cut and paste this little explanation over and over and over into my messages for you, until you show some sign of comprehending it.

*ahem*

It does not matter who wrote the book.
Let me say that again.
It does not matter who wrote the book.
What matters, what the crucial difference between a science textbook and the Bible is, is that you can verify for yourself that the facts presented are accurate, and that the theories put forth make sense. That is the difference. Let me rephrase the first point.
It does not matter if the book is full of lies.
Again.
It does not matter if the book is full of lies.
Do you know why? Because we, you and I, can go and find out if the book is lying! We can actually just walk outside, or cut ourselves open with a steak knife, or stick plants in pots, and go and verify for ourselves that the book is telling the truth! Because a science textbook speaks of physical things. Things we can touch and see and taste and verify. Blabber until your *-FUCKING-* *-HEAD-* *-FALLS-* *-OFF-* about how a book can be full of lies. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE BOOK IS FULL OF LIES. Because we can find out.

Do you follow this?

-g

euraljones@aol.comnojunk (EJ) wrote in <20010311090149.12940.00000613@ng-df1.aol.com>:

Glad to be of service! Drive to Berkeley and visit a place called the Lawrence Hall of Science. There are some exhibits there this year that you simply must see with your own eyes. This "Berkley". How do you know the people there are credible "givers of truth" that you know they would never lie to you to recieve a grant or sell a text-book? Do you know them personaly to know they are a

.....

Pardon me if I skip over the rest of this

.......

"higher-evolved breed' that they have absolutely no need for money and

...... BLAH BLAH BLAH .....

I've seen scientific bullshit and i've seen cartoon bullshit. What makes you any less bullshited than i am? You haven't yet made your point that man has evolved from apes.

Okay, square one, EJ:

It does not matter who wrote the book. It does not matter if the book is full of lies.

Because we, you and I, can go and find out if the book is lying! We can actually just walk outside, or cut ourselves open with a steak knife, or stick plants in pots, and go and verify for ourselves that the book is telling the truth! Because a science textbook speaks of physical things. Things we can touch and see and taste and verify.

Read what I said, and read what you wrote, and now read what you said in response. You're spraying crap at a wall, and I'm standing waaaay over here, waving to try and get your attention. I'm not talking about who wrote the book or even why. So don't even mention that to me, because it doesn't have anything to do with what I'm trying to say.

If you respond to me with more crap about who wrote the book or what their intentions were, I'll just paste this at you again.

-g

JONAH <anewworld@earthlink.net> wrote in <3AC0BCE7.89FA1304@earthlink.net>:

COUNTDOWN TO HAR-MAGEDON Fred Stone: It seems that the key to this whole conversation lies in just one little phrase which you seem to ignore. That being: "they have no geologic significance until placed in the context of previous work on maps." Without any explanation, they assert to "previous work" which is never identified. Until such is identified, of what value is such a quotation?

You are so frickin' lazy, Dave. Go the hell outside and do some bloody geology experiments. I am sick and tired of you sitting on your big Pastor ass all day playing word-hockey with newsgroup ghosts and avoiding the simple task of being responsible for your own education. You're not fooling anyone, you know. If you cannot agree with the references given in a textbook, you are perfectly capable of going outside and finding the facts yourself. Your laziness does not serve as an excuse.

-g

"Gustavo Seabra" wrote in <989v66$2o4$1@cnn.ksu.ksu.edu>:

"garote" <garrett@motionspamsucks.com> wrote in message news:Xns905ED274C82F0garrettmotioncom@129.250.35.102... (...) So then I would be correct in my supposition that every single person who has owned slaves, or participated in the trade of them, is now burning in hell? Including a great many high-profile ancestors of the "south" in the United States? Like Thomas Jefferson? If this is the second commandment, I imagine it's fairly important. So when you say above, that a head-hunter's culture is the determination of whether or not he commited sin, that's not really true is it ... It doesn't matter what his culture thinks, or what his neighbors say. He's on his way to the big pit. This has to be true or -- one would be compelled to admit that -- a person's culture is the judge of sin. And that evil is not objective. It is subjective. -g Of course not. God could not be good and at the same time leave his own children (men) burn in hell forever. Even one human father, full of imperfections, is not mean enough to ground a child forever! but of course, one would have to learn more about loving each other before he can go to heaven. It's a matter of time. Seabra.

I agree that it's impossible for a "good" God to leave humans to burn in hell forever. It makes more sense to provide at least some means of escape or atonement. Perhaps hell would be better off a correctional facility of some kind, instead of a maximum security prison.

But I fear that this is all beside the point --

because if it is true that society, culture, is the judge of evil, that means that God is no longer the judge of who has sinned or not, people are. And so, we condemn ourselves and each other to hell, and God is not a lawmaker, he is merely the warden.

-g

"Dore Williamson" <spiritfire@supernet.com> wrote in <9XCp6.276$227.96411@nntp2.onemain.com>:

you wrote.. I haven't mocked any righteous, pure or holy individuals. I mocked you.A mentally incompetent k00k who has nothing better to do than

...........

as long as you continue to spew forth k00kfarts, then I'm gonna be poking you with my pointy stick. Well, guess what.. anyone who does NOT believe in me IS going to hell no matter what you blind, evil, ignorant, immature, morons think. You don't poke me. Your opinions have the same value as your soul. NONE! Oh, you can try to poke me with your pitchfork, you devil, but it only tickles and makes me laugh.

I knew someone like you in my 11th grade English class, long ago. She was very rude to everyone, and would interrupt people at inappropriate times and try to convince people to give themselves over to God, and yadda yadda. I felt sorry for her, because she didn't seem to have any friends, and she was very angry about something, but she never said what. A few years later I saw her in a 7-11, looking haggard and sad.

I thought it would be nice to try being friends with her, since she appeared to need a friend, but I didn't speak to her, and she didn't recognize me. I just walked out.

Later I realized that I had been afraid of her -- afraid that she would spit more venom at me, like she had done in English class when I got into an argument with her about the Bible. Sometimes I remember that incident, when the behavior of some zealot or another irritates me.

Zealots have my sympathy -- because the implements they have chosen to seek help with are terribly ineffective, and seem to bring them nothing but continued isolation.

A friend of mine once claimed to have met her outside that same 7-11, where she propositioned him to trade money for a blowjob. I think he was just lying because she'd hurt his feelings. Either that or she was trying to shock him.

I dunno, people are weird. They find all sorts of stupid things to fill their time with.

you wrote.. Believing that you are God, is not the act of a wise man. People want proof there, God.....er........Dore, and you haven't given any. And NONE will be given, for all proof is written in the scriptures, which you are completely ignorant of. Who's fault is it, that you are completely ignorant of truth? Not mine.

Sir, I've read the scriptures, or at least a lot of them. I didn't find anything resembling a proof. What are you referring to? Could you quote me something?

Matt 12:39-40 39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

So this is written in the KJV Bible -- but what does it "prove"? It's just a quote about Jonas written down.

Here is the ONLY proof that you will be given, and if it isn't enough.. OH well... not MY problem. http://members.tripod.com/~spirit_of_prophecy/hell.html

I looked at this page ... it's only a long rant about someones impression of hell. I'm curious, what do you think of, when you think of the word "proof"? Could you define it for me, maybe?

...........

No, I am nothing like them. I let you live with all of your choices and simply judge and condemn you, fulfilling my purpose on the earth. I won't take your life, the Father has that in His hands. I judge and condemn and wait for that justification to come to fruition, whether, it be disease, violence, natural disaster, war or whatever God has in store for the wicked.

Um, Dore, everyone dies. What difference does your judgement make?

..................

many go to extremes for other pleasures, what would be more important than going to extremes for GOD and HIS WORDS? And NO I can't get over myself, for I am God of the earth, the returned judge and redeemer, and there is NOTHING you can do to change that, and all of your denial, howbeit with extreme ignorance, doesn't make me go away or change my purpose. Why don't YOU get over being evil, stupid, ignorant, rebellious against God and HIS word, then you would KNOW who I am.

Dore, you're a bad faker. You're acting nothing like Jesus.

..............

You only have to die to find out, and nobody is more excited for you to find the truth, by your death, than me. Good bye, devil, wicked, evil doer. Good riddance, nobody is happier to see you go then me. Your death can't happen soon enough for me.

..............

It's a bad idea to bandy about threats like this, Dore. Someone is going to pass judgement on you for it. Death threats are quite definitely a parole violation.

-g

"Dore Williamson" <spiritfire@supernet.com> wrote in : .....

it was written.. Matt 12:39-40 39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. So this is written in the KJV Bible -- but what does it "prove"? It's just a quote about Jonas written down. See how completely blind you are. This scripture is so NOT about Jonah, it is about MY experience three days and nights in the heart of the earth in hell. It was merely a casual reference to Jonah because of the timeline, and nothing more.

No, it's about Jonah, and someone trying to speak to somebody else using Jonah as an analogy. This was written thousands of years before you even existed. It's obviously not about you. :)

You want to sit back, lulling in your sins, complacency and lack of desire for the righteousness of God and then EXPECT me to provide proof that will satisfy you. You are undeserving of such proof, why should I bow to YOUR will? What is so wonderful and righteous about you, that I should desire to give you undeniable proof to convert you as though I desire you so much to share in my heaven with me, when you have not lifted so much a finger to be worthy of such an act?

Heh. Because, Dore, I am just as valuable as you are. I do not bow to your will or wishes. I am an intelligent, autonomous bieng with at least as much force and thought behind my words as yours. People aren't like burros -- you can't just whap them on the ass with a board and expect them to haul your stuff around (abusive even to a burro, mind you). If you want me to do something, you have to ask me, and if I demand proof, you have to provide it.

Or you can just throw a fit and say, "no! I will give you no proof!" At which point I will shrug and reply "okay, I won't do what you ask."

People are fickle. :)

Let me put it another way:

You must show me proof.

Why? Because there's no way I'm going to just start believing you for no reason at all. And if this condemns me to hell, then what are you here for? All the people that truly "want" to believe you are going to heaven anyway and you have nothing to do with it.

You're either here to show me proof, or you're just here to jack yourself off with your own rhetoric.

-g

"Dore Williamson" <spiritfire@supernet.com> wrote in :

you wrote.. Zealots have my sympathy -- because the implements they have chosen to seek help with are terribly ineffective, and seem to bring them nothing but continued isolation. Isolation from the world, (NO loss) while in communion with God, (truly magnificent). She may had looked haggard and sad, and she was because of the evil of mankind, and the abuse from them, which causes righteous anger.

But she really didn't seem angry. Just haggard and sad, and kind of lonely.

But I bet you weren't there, when God comforted her, gave her spiritual gifts that you couldn't imagine. You may have pitied her because she was NOT comforted and happy in THIS pathetic life on earth, but what she did have, what greater things that you will never know and you weren't there when she received such great and wonderful gifts that gave her more joy into the deepest of her heart.

Dore, generally when someone looks haggard, sad, and lonely on the outside, they're feeling the same on the inside. But it doesn't matter, see, because the vitriol I remembered her for kept me from reaching out to her anyway.

What I remember of her arguments and attitude was basically this: She thought everyone was inferior to herself. Nobody wants to hang around someone who thinks they're inferior, and so, she was eventually left alone.

And this is the same problem you, and other zealots, have.

(...

Your life is full of superficial and worthless things, whereas her's was full of extreme things, living life to greater degrees, experiencing things that you will never know in realms and places that you cannot imagine.

...)

Zealots believe that everyone else's life is full of superficial and worthless things, mostly because the zealots think they have been denied these things -- and in righteous ire, have denounced them as sinful simply because they can't have them. I once met a heroin addict. He said that he loved heroin because everything else was superficial and worthless. I asked him what he thought all the other people in the world did when they weren't doing herion. He said they all just sat around watching TV. Really, if that's all you think is out there in life, why not just keep shooting up? Same thing with zealots. The rush of self-gratification they find in playing the role of a superior is all they think life has to offer.

Dore, my life is full of warmth, and good friends. My biggest problem these days is deciding which friend I want to hang out with after work. I know first hand, and feel personally and fully, that my life contains valuable things -- interesting conversation, good food, caring people, fascinating technology.

Your life, Dore, is superficial, and meaningless.

This community is all you have in this life, and this life is the only life you get. Before you can join this community, or make a friend, you have to purge this useless wrath and anger from your mind that a Christian upbringing has saddled you with.

-g

The Owen wrote in <3AAA19ED.5E4FFD4@my-deja.com>:

Joel Hope wrote: Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message news:974E284BB4912A79.5DBFBF2133252C84.6A9218893FA612C6@lp.airnews.net ... Joel Hope <joelhope1@home.com> wrote in alt.atheism Do you believe in evil? No. So serial killing is acceptable? Is that one of those "Non Sequiter" thingies? Do I get a prize?

[organ music]

YEeessss, The Owen, you WIN - [curtain swooshes aside. Audience gasps.] A BRAAAAAND NEEEEEEEW KEYBOOOOAAAARD!!

Er, well, no not really. But you've got a keen eye.

-g

"Gustavo Seabra" wrote in <989uk3$2ec$1@cnn.ksu.ksu.edu>:

"Kerry" <"cleanair "@aircleanse.com.au> wrote in message news:3AA81B39.4A9CD659@aircleanse.com.au... Pastor Frank wrote: Anonymous wrote in message ... I see 2 general kinds of christians; those whom believe in what they cannot understand and join to assert: 1. One MUST believe in and worship Jesus to have their own escape from death and punishment/suffering. 2. ONLY they whom believe and worship Jesus have escape from their own death and punishment/suffering. 3. One needs ONLY believe in and worship Jesus to have their own escape from death and punishment/suffering; lawfulness/righgteousnes is NOT necessary, as all are hopelessly sinful. You have absolutely no idea what Jesus is all about. Jesus is about having great and noble ideals of becoming truly humane in the likeness and perfection of Jesus Himself. Anybody who thinks he can earn his "escape from death and punishment / suffering" by worshipping Jesus is going straight to hell. Pastor Frank Jesus didn't appear as the fictional character he is until the Council of Nicea and the original xtians were slaughtered by the thugs Constantine gave the nod to and took over the state after legalisation in 314 CE. As for the lies you keep raving on about claiming he is "noble" and "love" and "humane" why don't you spend a few minutes and look at what happened when Rome became a theocracy and destroyed civilisation as it was and introduced the first death camps for all who were not the jesus god believers back in 359 CE. The Taliban are amateurs by comparison; http://www.wcer.org/members/europe/Greece/persec.htm

From what I've read, this is unfortunately true. A council met in order to unify the diverse religions under one name, and by the vote of a bunch of politicians, Jesus was chosen, as a middle-ground. His relationship with the holy trinity and God was chosen as a P.R. move to stop people from bickering about the divinity or non-divinity of their prophets.

-g

"Pastor Frank" <NOSPAMfasco@bigfoot.com> wrote in <98dvnp$p0b$2@nntp.mozcom.com>:

garote wrote in message ... And once the law was handed down, the bloody enforcement began. Incidents like the Council of Nicea are the very exact reason why the United States was so adamant about the separation of church and state. It's an unfortunate testament to the frailty of human progress that ignorant people in modern times would lobby to have this separation undone, in favor of renewed bloodshed. The "separation of church and state" is to prevent the establishment of a state church, such as the Church of England was, it is NOT meant to silence Christians, as atheists read it.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with you. But if Christians attempted to make the government hold a government-sponsored council to decide that there was only one legal god to worship, and then passed legislation that made the worship of other gods an illegal action punishable by death,... I think they'd be going a BIT too far. And this is what the Council of Nicea was all about, and the effect it had was absolutely horrendous.

As you said:

The "separation of church and state" is to prevent the establishment of a state church,

... Which was the Council of Nicea's PURPOSE. I couldn't agree with you more. And if Christians try it again, I won't bloody well stand by and let them get away with it.

But anyway:

Kerry aa #1773 There's a BIG mistake here: One thing is Jesus, the one that came 2000 years ago to bring us so many news. Another is "Christians". They are ABSOLUTELY not the same. You can't blame Jesus for the self-named Christians! If they used Christ's name to explain their behavior, they'll answer for it. try to spend some time reading not what the so-called Christians have done, but what Jesus himself had. You'll see a big difference. Seabra.

I find this approach to Christianity, and the appreciation of Jesus, to be generally a lot more constructive. It's true that you can't blame Jesus for the self-named Christians. You can, however, blame a lot of the self-named Christians for not thinking like Jesus, and instead, thinking like zealots.

Besides, it's also perfectly O.k. to be an agnostic, or even an atheist, and still read about Jesus and try to understand what he represented. Unfortunately it's hard to sort him out of all the other noise recorded in the Bible.

-g

Pastor Dave <pcdude@optonline.net> wrote in <d8bpatsma1m2n5bs80203r147m5kflphcs@4ax.com>:

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:56:04 GMT, garrett@motionspamsucks.com (garote) wrote: Pastor Dave <pcdude@optonline.net> wrote in <e43natg787p8cn29lsp0dng8d2rbincjk5@4ax.com>: On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:14:44 GMT, garrett@motionspamsucks.com (garote) wrote: "Joel" <joelhope@hotmail.com> wrote in <%tzi6.65955$m5.3710070@news1.rdc1.ga.home.com>: "Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3A8A8899.CD072DC4@yahoo.com... Joel wrote: ............. Crime is crime shit for brains. There are more bible thumping, deity ass kissing morons in prisons there atheists. You and your kind have been found guilty of more murder, hate, strife, wars, and evil then any one group on the face of the earth and through out recorded history. I haven't killed anyone. Name one war... The 30 year war. The crusades. Want more? Yes. furnish one that pertains to Chiristianity. The Crusades were the result of instruction from the Vatican, not Christ's teachings. You make a better argument when you cite the Chirstian doctrine. Joel, that's the point. When people say the word Christianity they refer to all the people in history who have called themselves Christians, not the meager handful that actually try to follow the teachings of Christ. The label of Christianity has become synonymous with hypocrisy in this age, because of the very bloody and horrific track record of those fighting in the name of Christ. Synonymous to some, but not to any true Christian. It doesn't matter who's a "true" Christian and who's not, pastor. It quite simply makes no difference to the rest of the world. It makes a difference to a Christian.

Yes, but you're having a discussion in ALT.ATHEISM, aren't you? We are a subset of "the rest of the world". And to us, Christianity means corruption and bloody murder, and for very good reasons: Bloody murder has been committed by bloody Christians throughout bloody history.

They're both still called Christians, and Christians are blamed for the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. Either you are directly responsible for them, or you are responsible for them in name, and should change your name to avoid incrimination. Humans are responsible for many atrocious acts, regardless of many of their beliefs. Maybe you should change your name, to avoid incrimination.

What kind of garbage response is this? You don't have anything sensible to say so you change the subject? I reiterate: Christians are blamed, and rightly so, for the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. As long as you bear the label of Christian, you WILL be associated with hatred and violence. I'm not trying to argue that this is how it should be, I am stating that this is how IT IS, and this newsgroup which (on my server) currently stands at a hundred thousand messages in three months, is clear and present evidence of that fact.

A lot of people hate Christianity, Frank. And they're not arguing on a whim. They have axes to grind and bones to pick. -Because those who call themselves "Christians" have delivered a lot of misery to them over the years. Not love, not understanding, not acceptance. MISERY.

........

Good then! We're agreed. So, we can both acknowledge it in the open: MOST CHRISTIANS THROUGHOUT HISTORY WERE HYPOCRITES AND MURDERERS. No. Most people who CALLED themselves Christians.

I think I hear a Scotsman.

This point is irrelevant, Frank. There is no difference. You're talking about these people as if they just made a T-shirt that said "GOD RUULZ" and hung out at a crossroads mugging people and blaming it on Christ. These people - these butchers and sadists - went to church, read the Bible, took communion, accepted and delivered sermons, wore priestly robes, and in some cases even wore the Pope's Hat. If you claim they just went through the motions, well they sure made a convincing show of it.

I'll be the first to agree with you that your religion has been consistently MOCKED by it's own followers throughout recorded history. You need to deal with the fallout of such corruption, instead of trying to pretend it isn't there. The name of Christianity has been sullied black, and there's an awful lot of work to be done if you want to clear that name.

.....

You're arguing about something else, here. This entire time we've been discussing the label of the doctrine. The doctrine may be the Bible, but the label is Christianity, and Christians have been right bastards. Humans have been.

Aye, and most of those humans have called themselves Christians! Quit changing the f*cking subject, it's wasting our time.

-g

Puck Greenman wrote in <3g6dat0qajrjfcp07gs95i9mni6t4lihiu@4ax.com>:

On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:37:00 -0000, "taichi" <taichi@eastwind.net> wrote: Greetings Karl, God no longer does proofs.

...........

There is evidence of a creator all around you. Produce it.

See, this is the problem we always come up against. Someone says 'produce it', and the zealot points at any old thing, like a rock, or a chair.

Here's how it goes:

When you say: "Why, that's a chair. Men made that."
They say: "Ah, but who made the wood?"
You say: "A tree!"
Then they get all haughty, and say: "Ah, but who planted the tree?"
You say: "One or several of the following: Wind, erosion, or an animal."
They say: "Ah HA! So who made those animals?"
And you say: "Mommy and Daddy animals. Can we quit now?"
They say: "Hang on, this is really going somewhere! so, who made the first animals?"
And you say: "As near as we can figure, there were no first animals. They arose in a time-consuming transition from reactive substances to the animals we see today."
And they say: "Hah! You can't prove that!"
And you say: "There's an awful lot of evidence that points to it though."
And they do a little dance, and say: "Ha ha haa, but you can't prooooove it!"
And you say: "Only because it happened in the past."
And they say: "So? Still can't prove it! Nyah nyah! There is a God! Nyah nyah nyah!!"

And then you PUNCH THEM IN THE MOUTH.

And they say: "Ow! What did you do that for?"
And you say: "What? Me? I didn't do anything!"
And they say: "Yes you did! You just punched me right in the mouth!"
And you say: "No I didn't, God did it."
And they say: "That's ridiculous!"
And you say: "Prove it."
And they say: "I don't need to prove it. I saw it happen!"
And you say: "So? I wasn't looking. I had my eyes closed. You still need to prove it to me."
And they say: "My mouth hurts, and your fist is red, and there's nobody else around, and you were being rude to me!"
And you say: "Nope, still don't believe you."
And they shout: "BUT ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO IT!"
And you jump up and down say: "NOW YOU'RE THINKING!"

Hostory has shown that the language Christians speak best is one derived from war and punishment. Why not speak to them in the language they know best?

-g

-g

"Pastor Frank" <NOSPAMfasco@bigfoot.com> wrote in <96tigl$p4q$7@nntp.mozcom.com>:

Shaitan wrote in message ... In article <96sphh$e5c$4@nntp.mozcom.com> "Pastor Frank" <NOSPAMfasco@bigfoot.com> wrote: Jesus Christ represents that love to the very extreme, for dying for those whom you love is the ultimate proof of love. Millions of people have done just that. What makes Jesus special? It's not that Jesus is "special" for dying on the cross to extirpate our sins, but that you should notice. So far all Jesus is able to elicit from you is: "--Yawn....so what? Millions did it". But once you need Him, you too will likely call on Him to deliver you from the hell you got yourself into. And He will come and fetch you in compassion, love and grace. For that's the way Jsus is.

Ever seen that bumper sticker what goes "Blessed Jesus, protect me from YOUR DISCIPLES." ?

Pack up your old-time-religion FUD tactic crap and peddle it somewhere where you'll be heard. Alt.atheism is full of middle-class people with free time and computer skills. They will not listen to you, because they do not need you. They have other things to rely on than the church, like good friends, loving family, and the economy. And if all these things desert them one day, if everyone they know dies and they are broke and cold on the street, they will go to a hostel or to the police station, or hitchhike to a place where the economy is better.

Your freaking church is not the only place where compassion may exist. In many cases, your freaking church is the LAST place true compassion exists.

I've met smug people like you, who hide contempt behind a veil of compassion. You eagerly await armageddon so you can finally see all the "unbelievers" crawl. You want it to happen, because then you will finally be in the position of power. You will finally be justified. Some people like you are not be content to sit around waiting for mass destruction either, and we call those people religious terrorists.

But I'm not playing your game. None of us here are. The world is slowly moving on, and the terrifying guilt-based institution you promote is slowly becoming useless. Thank goodness.

-g

"Pastor Frank" <NOSPAMfasco@bigfoot.com> wrote in <95lcqm$apq$6@nntp.mozcom.com>:

Eric Gill wrote in message <3A7D9D2A.2B4E71FE@yahoo.com>... Pastor Frank wrote: Masked Man wrote in message <3a9a8498.193822169@enews.newsguy.com>...

............

for all philosophies rest on their own special set of axioms, and conclusions are therefore only valid within the set parameter. What Al is asking is to prove idealism by means of materialism, which amounts to proving Christianity by means of atheism. No, Junior, he is asking you to provide resonable and unambigous evidence to support you claims I make no claims. I merely believe, that the Christian religion is superior to any other religion, much like you claim your atheism is superior to any religion. These are beliefs, and beliefs are suppositions lacking sufficient evidence to make them facts. In fact religion in toto rests on beliefs and faith rather than knowledge of facts. Get used to it "Junior"!!! Pastor Frank

Why are you here, Pastor Frank? What are you doing in this newsgroup other than making an ass of youself?

Let me quote what you just said, because I want you, and everyone else, to see it again. It's important.

"In fact religion in toto rests on beliefs and faith rather than knowledge of facts."

You just said this. You know this. Now answer my question: What are you doing here?

"In fact religion in toto rests on beliefs and faith rather than knowledge of facts."

That's RIGHT. You are absolutely 100% right. That's the truest statement you've made all year I bet. Nobody in this entire newsgroup would disagree with that statement. Now why are you here typing these messages? Do you feel you need to "defend" Christianity from atheism? Why? What could you possibly use to defend it?? Read your statement AGAIN. Get it INTO YOUR HEAD.

"In fact religion in toto rests on beliefs and faith rather than knowledge of facts."

Understand this, Frank. Really understand it. Then quit all this bullcrap and start doing something important with your life.

-g

euraljones@aol.comnojunk (EJ) wrote in <20010304001733.18431.00000415@ng-mk1.aol.com>:

.

..........

Sounds just like religion to me. You bet. Religion is full of decievers; that would be Satan's game. can we expect anything less of him?

You really, really need to get out. I mean really. I implore you to go traveling. Please. Go to China. Take out a student loan, or take a job for a while, or ask your parents to front the money. PLEASE.

Take an extended vacation and go to China, and hang out with the billion or so people who live their lives there.

Take a good look around at all these people. Yes, one BILLION people. They all have something in common.

None of them have read the Bible. None of them have heard of Satan. None of them. They have their own religion, and it has nothing to do with Jesus or Satan. A billion people! That's more people than you could EVER KNOW, even if you spent your entire life trying to shake hands with them, even for one second each! And none of them have heard of Jesus or Satan! And they all speak and write a different language, a language that has never been recorded in the Bible!

I'm serious! Look, even if I was lying to you, you can just go to China, and find out! Really! Fly there! It's not some illusion, or some made up story, or some fantasy land,... thanks to scientific progress, you can actually buy a ticket, get on a plane, and fly thousands and thousands of miles!! It's incredible!

Please, go there, even if just on a tourist program from some travel agency. You will learn incredible things.

Then you can stop wasting your time, posting this CRAP .

-g