References: <6o3v03$a7o@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: Leo <r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: none
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.bible.prophecy
can't tell you where to go for a King James Bible to download on line.
But I can't help wondering why a Russian Orthodox person in the 1990's
would want KJV when there are several MUCH better versions available.
I use the NIV. Others use the NEV. Then there's the NKJV.
Why this interest in a Bible that wasn't that good a translation to begin
with?
If you want a Bible, there are several online.
Must it be on your computer? Or will an on-line version do?
Actually, I recommend you read several versions. Then you will see that
there really is no meaning lost, and the newer translations are MUCH
easier to read/comprehend.
I will in the meantime look for a url or two so you can go online for
your
reading.
won't promise KJV however.
try this one
I beleive there are 6 or 8 versions at this address. perhaps you'll find
something you can download.
http://www.execulink.com/~danarsen/faithway/links.html
john
john_se...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Dear Christians!
> A FTP downloadable KJB needed.
> Could someone to give me a URL to FTP site where a free copy of KJB or
> similar authentic version may be downloaded to my hard disk?
> Send your link to r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Thanks.
> A Russian Orthodox.
From: bj <jayw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Fullfillment Of A Prophecy
Date: 1998/07/14
Message-ID: <6ofed0$lp0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 371300712
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <1998070305571000.BAA10632@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <35a4d6de.0
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <6o2r38$de2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: "* (Libertarius)" <atti...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: none
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.bible,talk.religion.misc,alt.bible.prophecy
> >><< After promising that he would "come quickly", after some 2000
> years he's
> >>nowhere to be seen. >>
you are again, misquoting. He said he would come quickly like a thief
(Rev
16:15). He didn't say, "be right back, in 5 minutes."There's a
difference,
and you have failed to discern it.
Try it this way:
You're at a car race. You watch the cars race around the track. Tho you
are
right there, and you can see the cars, when they're at the opposite end
of
the track, tho you can see them, they're a long way away, so to speak. It
will take the car several mintues to get from the farthest point back to
in
front of you as it p*****. That's "not quickly".
As you watch, the guy behind you spills his drink all over you. It
happens
so fast, that, even though you hear the "Oops!", and you look over your
shoulder, the liquid is in the air and coming at you, and there isn't
even
a second to dodge the liquid as it spills down the back of yoiur neck.
Jesus meant, "When I come, I will come without warning, like a thief."
Surely if you knew the thief was going to grab the lady's purse, you'd
stop
him from doing it. The thief strikes suddenly, and makes a quick getaway.
The burglar checks to be sure no one is home, hopefully. Then he breaks
in.
He steals what he wants, and he's out in a minute, and he's long gone
before the police can even respond to your burglar alarm. This "coming
quickly" has nothing to do with WHEN He is coming, how soon after He
uttered the warning, "I'll come quickly."
We won't have 6 weeks warning,
"Jesus said to tell you, this is June 17th. He'll be here August 1st, and
everything better be ready, or He's gonna be mad."
No! He said, "When I come back, I'll come quickly. So STAY READY! Study.
Understand. Stay alert! Stay Awake!"
Anyway, you needn't bother yourself with when/where/how He's coming,
since
you aren't One of His, He's not coming for you, so don't worry about
when.
> >>
> >He has come, as promised, but for 1930 years we've missed the Big
> Event. The
> >destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was the 'Coming' that Christ
> promised - it
> >cleared away the old Temple so that the new Temple of the human heart
> could
> >take its place.
> >
misinterpretation. heresy. apostasy.j
> >Or so I contend. Can you prove me wrong? And Don't just say you can -
> prove
> >it from the Scriptures.
see above.j
> >
> >Or if you're an atheist don't flame me - think of something better to
> flame.
> >
> >Adam
> >
> ===>This is not a "flame". But you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
>
> Do you want proof? Here is proof:
>
> ALL of the books of the New Testament collection were written AFTER
> A.D. 70, except the letters of Saul/Paul. And they ALL depict the
> "second coming" as a FUTURE EVENT!!!
not true. In fact, there is every reason to believe that the entire Bible
was writen BEFORE 70 A.D.??????
There is one MAJOR event that took place in 70 A.D. that would certainly
have been in the Bible if it had occurred before the last book of the NT
was written. The absense of any mention of that MAJOR event in Jersulalem
is a MAJOR indicator that all the books we have in what we know today as
The Holy Bible, were complete before 70 A.D.
The Romans sacked Jerusalem and leveled the temple. Surely, as im****tant
as
the temple was to the jews, they'd have referered to the destruction of
their temple in 70 A.D. somewhrere in the New Testament, if any of the
New
Testament had been written AFTER the destruction of the temple. That no
word is mentioned of the destruction of the Holy of Holies anywhere in
the
New Testament indicates that the New Testament was completed before
A.D.70.
This has nothing to do with the 2nd Coming.
>
>
> You might argue, as others have, that the Gospel writers are
> looking back and quoting Jesus. True, they do put some fictitious words
> of "prediction" into the mouth of their main character Jesus, but they
> were not present and there were no secretaries or tape recorders
> following Jesus,
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzj
> However, you cannot possibly say the same thing about
> Revelation, 2 Peter chapter 3, etc. They were clearly WRITTEN WAY PAST
> the events of the 70's
not true. Just because John wrote about things he saw in the distant
future, John would still have most likely referreed to the destruction of
the Temple if it had taken place before he completed Revelation.j
> and still put the "second coming" into the NEAR
> FUTURE. The expectation was a PHYSICAL RETURN of Jesus or the Son of
> Man in some shape or form, not just some spiritual transformation vie a
> new religion.
>
> Libertarius
> *DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
From: bj <jayw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: A yaweherian prose of Mockery..............
Date: 1998/07/14
Message-ID: <6ofd32$svb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 371297020
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <1998070914255600.KAA08019@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<35A4F613.1FF3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: Left Hand Path <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: none
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.fan.jesus-
christ,alt.christnet,alt.religion.christian,alt.bible,alt.bible.prophecy
so sad to waste such an intellect on such lowly pursuits.
"No greater fool ever lived than the man who refuses to give up that
which he cannot
keep (his life)
in order to gain that which he cannot lose (eternal life)
(wish I knew who said that)
you truly play with hell fire.
you are insane, or a true fool, or both
j
Left Hand Path wrote:
> Unhallowed wrote:
> >
> > oh jensa I hate thee as thy mother sheds
her tears,
> > I'll strike your rectal kingdom and instill
within you
> > fear
> > jehovah was the lord of grace and his love shall
not be
> > missed,
> > I throw the good book to the ground unzip my
pants, and
> > Piss
> > lord jeWhorevah was just another backward insane jew,
> > I strolled into the house of god and shat upon the
pew
> > for jesus lord's joyful kingdom I shall neva neva wait,
> > instead I'll point my prick towards heaven, yelp, then
urinate
> > jesus father Curse you now tis pain to you I'll show,
> > I'll slap thy mother unsheath my dick and make her wilfully
blow
> > people may say that I'm messed up and possibly quite wierd,
> > but I will have the last laugh yesha when I pluck jehovah's
beard.
From: bj <jayw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: ROLL CALL !!!!!!! Please only reply If you believe John 3.5
is fulfilled in Acts 2.38
Date: 1998/07/14
Message-ID: <6of7e2$svb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 371280098
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6o0ce0$k2v$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<35A4C389.E52FD88D@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: Bob Deep <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: none
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.bible.prophecy
hey, dudes and dudesses:
Im kinda new here.
I go by the name j
I think a few of you perhaps have read a few of my posts.
Some call me a prophet, tho I don't personally feel really comfortable
with that
title. I DO believe I've been called to
rightly divide the Word of Truth as best I understand it.
At any rate, I have a question. I've heard a little -- very little --
about the
Oneness Movement.
Anyone care to define the Oneness Movement for me.
Not flames, please. Only someone who is a member/believer of this
teaching reply,
please.
Thanks.
j
Bob Deep wrote:
> j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >
> > Praise the Wonderful Name of JESUS,
> >
> > I'm new to Christian Deja-news NGs, and would like to see an
Apostolic NG
> > started that we may Wor****p the Lord in the beauty of truth and
holiness for
> > this would be pleasing to Him who sits on the throne of Glory,
JESUS!!!!!!!
> >
> > Bro. Jack
> >
> > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion
==-----
> > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp
Create Your Own Free Member
Forum
>
> I beleive that you should have a look at www.prime.org... Mr Winter has
> he own private thing going there... I'll bet that, if you are nice (ie
> agree with him) Steve will let you in. Beware, though... The barking
> dog does have some small teeth if he gets mad at ya...
From: bj <jayw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: ROLL CALL !!!!!!! Please only reply If you believe John 3.5
is fulfilled in Acts 2.38
Date: 1998/07/14
Message-ID: <6of7rl$svb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 371283557
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6o0ce0$k2v$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<35A4C389.E52FD88D@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: Bob Deep <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: none
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.bible.prophecy
oh, sorry!
hehehe
I asked for a Oneness believer to please explain the Oneness beliefs,
then didn't give me e-mail address.
My real one doesn't seem to be working at this time, so
send replies to john_se...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Deep wrote:
> j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >
> > Praise the Wonderful Name of JESUS,
> >
> > I'm new to Christian Deja-news NGs, and would like to see an
Apostolic NG
> > started that we may Wor****p the Lord in the beauty of truth and
holiness for
> > this would be pleasing to Him who sits on the throne of Glory,
JESUS!!!!!!!
> >
> > Bro. Jack
> >
> > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion
==-----
> > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp
Create Your Own Free Member
Forum
>
> I beleive that you should have a look at www.prime.org... Mr Winter has
> he own private thing going there... I'll bet that, if you are nice (ie
> agree with him) Steve will let you in. Beware, though... The barking
> dog does have some small teeth if he gets mad at ya...
From: bj <jayw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: (70) Mistakes of Moses: Robert G. Ingersoll
Date: 1998/07/14
Message-ID: <6ofcbn$svb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 371292878
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6o2jid$t9e$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: none
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.bible.prophecy,alt.atheism,alt.bible,wi.general
>
>
> It is a little curious that when God wished to
> reform the ante-diluvian world he said nothing about
> hell; that he had no revivals, no camp-meetings, no
> tracts, no outpourings of the Holy Ghost, no bap-
> tisms, no noon prayer meetings, and never mentioned
> the great doctrine of salvation by faith.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
remember men like
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were considered righteous?
David and Solomon were two of more recent memory.
David, tho' he had not believed in the Christ (who had not yet come), yet
was called "A man
after God's own heart"
and we believe he went to heaven because God judged his heart.
Men were not condemned merely because Jesus had not come in flesh yet.
And to suggest that is to not understand the Love we see in God in the
Bible.
David, upon the loss /death of his newborn infant son, mourned,
"He cannot return to me. But I can go to him."
David expressed his belief, nowhere contradicted by Jehovah or Christ,
that he would go to
Heaven when he died.
David and the other pre-Christ patriarchs, lived a life of Good Works,
when it was possible
to get into Heaven that way.
Now that we have Christ/His atonement available, we must believe on Him
to get into Heaven.
Simple enough?
I know I'll arouse the anger of many simple minded "believers" who have
been taught "only
those who believe on Jesus can go to Heaven". I assure you all that such
a teaching is NOT
in the Bible.
The Old Testament teaches The Righteous live by faith.
In the New Testament, Jesus becomes our Righteousness.
j
john_se...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> If the orthodox creeds of the world are true, all
> those people went to hell without ever having heard
> that such a place existed.
>
> If eternal torment is a fact, surely these miserable
> wretches ought to have been warned. They were threatened
> only with water when they were in fact doomed to eternal
> fire!
>
> Is it not strange that God said nothing to Adam
> and Eve about a future life; that he should have kept
> these "infinite verities" to himself and allowed
> millions to live and die without the hope of heaven,
> or the fear of hell?
>
> It may be that hell was not made at that time.
> In the six days of creation nothing is said about the
> construction of a bottomless pit, and the serpent
> himself did not make his appearance until after the
> creation of man and woman. Perhaps he was made
> on the first Sunday, and from that fact came, it may
> be, the old couplet,
>
> "And Satan still some mischief finds
> For idle hands to do."
>
> The sacred historian failed also to tell us when
> the cherubim and the flaming sword were made, and
> said nothing about two of the persons-composing the
> Trinity. It certainly would have been an easy thing
> to enlighten Adam and his immediate descendants.
> The world was then only about fifteen hundred and
> thirty-six years old, and only about three or four
> generations of men had lived. Adam had been dead
> only about six hundred and six years, and some of
> his grandchildren must, at that time, have been alive
> and well.
>
> It is hard to see why God did not civilize these
> people. He certainly had the power to use, and the
> wisdom to devise the proper means. What right
> has a god to fill a world with fiends? Can there be
> goodness in this? Why should he make experiments that
> he knows must fail? Is there wisdom in this? And what
> right has a man to charge an infinite being with
> wickedness and folly?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Posted by Robert E. Nordlander
> n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> to: alt.bible.prophecy, alt.atheism, alt.bible, wi.general
>
> July 9, 1998
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp
Create Your Own Free Member Forum
From: john_seeks <john_se...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Name that passage
Date: 1998/10/07
Message-ID: <3646cc4b.27386906@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 398484190
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: balbo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
alt.bible.errancy
References: <364fdb32.143880785@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <36122b25.10477162
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: none
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.bible.errancy
My only question to you, all knowing Grendel, is
what do you gain by not believing?
john_seeks
Grendel wrote:
<snip>
Path: sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!
newsfeed2.easynews.com!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!
feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
Subject: Re: FREDERICKA... John needs your help!
Message-ID: <36bt0vcq3jfv1ru1misg7dq1ieh5q9c4t6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
References: <m4kb0voh92tqea2gjm8p99fdf04f0m97kj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3e05f605$1_2
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <KsKN9.138655$a8.97360
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <30LN9.138674$a8.108770
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <kgrg0vs7d05388t3l766stimvcccnpci7c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<3e08e2b8$1_2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<793j0v086avmjnnu97el3r0vgp4c9j0o8b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3e0a5d23_2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <4ffn0v02bq6jnngtd5qoc2v1kdnbcojp8q@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<3e0bcd3d$1_2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 44
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 00:05:39 -0800
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.3.69.124
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1041149591 67.3.69.124 (Sun, 29 Dec 2002
02:13:11 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 02:13:11 CST
You bait. and you fool no one very long.
John W
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 23:04:32 -0500, "Paul" <p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"John Weatherly" <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:4ffn0v02bq6jnngtd5qoc2v1kdnbcojp8q@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> We are done. I repent. You say "not interested. You weren't sincere."
>> You know my motives, as if you were God. "If I were sincere, you'd
>> see immediate, radical change." Not necessarily, and why is not of
>> your business. I've explained as you hvae asked; then you wern't
>> interested in what I told you. You're a phony!
>>
>> I withdraw my repentance. You are unworthy. I have cast my pearls to a
>> pigs!
>>
>> You're merely another rice counter. Hypocrite! Pharisee!
>>
>> John W
>
>Well, John, so much for your repentance, but then again we both knew it
>would come back around to this, didn't we.
>
>Paul
>
><snip>
>
>
>
>
>-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News
==----------
> http://www.newsfeed.com
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers
=-----
In Christ,
John W
------
"You don't break God's laws; they break you!"
Dr. Charlie Shedd
--------------
Ro 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe
in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Path: sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!
newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!
feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
Subject: Re: Now, SEE, Paul Tooley! You made a comment about my writing,
then...
Message-ID: <36sr0v00g77t0sh4sgfokrl4l6csl5g7ah@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
References: <s2hq0vcuead9gc2fmlfaq5v9kch5cs5ulr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3e0db0c4$1_2
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <aukea901gfg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3e0de4e7$1_2
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 66
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 10:43:58 -0800
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.3.90.217
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1041101383 67.3.90.217 (Sat, 28 Dec 2002
12:49:43 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 12:49:43 CST
The apostle Paul and I don't believe in "soul sleep".
Paul said "to be absent from the flesh is to be present with Christ."
John W
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 13:09:59 -0500, "Paul" <p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Nice letter. He may not be able to read it until the resurrection
though.
>:-)
>
>Paul
>
>"Teresita" <teres...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:aukea901gfg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <3e0db0c4$...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Paul" says...
>> >
>> >John,
>> >
>> >I am sorry. I honestly thought you were writing those things to the
>Apostle
>> >Paul. Just previous to your post of these nice poems you had written
>about
>> >the Apostle Paul being you older brother, and I just thought the
poems
>were
>> >an extension of that. Again Sorry for the mix up.
>>
>> If John can write to the Apostle Paul I can too.
>>
>> O Glorious Saint Paul, after persecuting the Church you became by
God's
>grace
>> its most zealous Apostle. To carry the knowledge of Jesus, our divine
>Savior, to
>> the uttermost parts of the earth you joyfully endured prison,
scourging,
>> stoning, and ****pwreck; as well as all manner of persecutions
culminating
>in the
>> shedding of the last drop of your blood for our Lord Jesus Christ.
Obtain
>for us
>> the grace to labor strenuously to being the faith to others and to
accept
>any
>> trials and tribulations that may come our way. Help us to be inspired
by
>your
>> Epistles and to partake of your indomitable love for Jesus, so that
after
>we
>> have finished our course we may join you in praising him in heaven for
all
>> eternity. Amen.
>>
>> --
>> Encyclopedia Teresita
>> http://web.newsguy.com/teresita/
>>
>
>
>
>
>-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News
==----------
> http://www.newsfeed.com
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers
=-----
In Christ,
John W
------
"You don't break God's laws; they break you!"
Dr. Charlie Shedd
--------------
Ro 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe
in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
From: jaywe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(jay west)
Subject: RE: ''Past Lives and Me''
Date: 1999/11/26
Message-ID: <383ecfe4.18109150@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 553404530
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 943641199 209.180.198.223 (Fri, 26 Nov 1999
12:33:19 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 12:33:19 CST
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal.reincarnation
Written by a demon. Inspired by other demons.
No one but Satan or his followers would utter these lies.
You have all been warned.
Seek the Savior/Jesus Christ and His Truth, the Only Truth.
Jesus said, ''except a man (person for you who wish to be 'politically
correct) be born again, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.''
The alternative to Heaven? Hell.
And the Holy Bible's comment on the BS of reincarnation.
''It is appointed for man to be born and die once; after this comes
the (final) judgement.''
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
spam deleted
From: jaywe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(jay west)
Subject: RE: If you're an atheist...
Date: 1999/11/17
Message-ID: <3832b020.803320@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 549695133
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 942846264 63.225.167.206 (Wed, 17 Nov 1999
07:44:24 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:44:24 CST
Newsgroups: alt.agnosticism
The total absurdity, even arrogance of this argument is that we
Christians know with no doubt, beyond mere 'belief' that there is a
God.
No matter how much you atheists/agnostics want to deride that issue,
we Christians know that there is a God, and we also know Him. There is
an undeniable personal relation****p. He communicates with me, I
communicate with Him. Sometimes, He is silent, yes. But not always.
For you to quibble over the difference between 'know' and 'believe' is
really petty semantics.
You don't believe in Him because you don't know Him, not the other way
around. We know Him, and therefore, we believe in Him. And no matter
how much you may scream 'delusion', that doesn't make you right.
God is demonstratable. God is verifiable, tho He can't be put in a
test tube, because He is too big. But He has said 'prove me'.There
will normally be several of a list of identifiable characteristics of
all Christians.
johnw
Sniper <Sni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in <382BAE37.19BAE...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>jesse l nowells wrote:
>>
>> On 12 Nov 1999, Dr Sinister wrote:
>>
>> > Well, here we go again. A person can know something without
>> > believing it. Remember this bit of conversation?
>>
>> yes, i can know the tenets of sinisterism & yet not believe in
>> sinsisterism. your question is ambiguous. i can know about sinisterism
>> & believe that i know about sinisterism but that is not the same as
>> believing in whatever sinisterism pur****ts to be about. so there.
>
>I think what he's saying is that if you _know_ something, (for instance,
>_knowing_ that fire is hot), that you will also believe it. It's seems
>obvious, but he's pointing out that some people have claimed that it's
>actually possible to know (in the sense that I mentioned), & yet still
>not believe. It's obvious to me that people will often times believe in
>things they do not know for certain, but seldom will you find someone
>who _knows_ something for certain, yet claims they don't believe.
It is more common that one would imagine for a sane society:
jeff <afn09...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
<Pine.A32.3.95.991101102050.37248D-100...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
"Actually, the question you pose is not answerable because he doesn't
believe he is an atheist. He knows he is an atheist."
Rune Boersjoe <l...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
<37ccdcc3.3020...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
"Problem being atheism isn't really a belief... it is a confirmation
of
what we all know..."
jesse l nowells <jnowe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
<Pine.HPP.3.96.991109170116.19763A-100...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
"why should beliefs be sup****ted? why not relate to the world strictly
by what appears to be facts & always check the presumptions?"
From: jaywe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(jay west)
Subject: Re: Just Believe?
Date: 1999/10/18
Message-ID: <3809cad2.13826060@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 537334914
References: <7tja4o$436$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<37FD2F5D.6D166D6A@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <37fe4bf2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<7tm011$d8l$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <2d9ab73f.7ea39aa1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <7trivh$gud$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<12dfa26c.0d4bc370@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 940212417 207.224.250.197 (Sun, 17 Oct 1999
21:06:57 CDT)
Organization: U S WEST Interprise
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 21:06:57 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian-
teen
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:38:16 +1700, kathy <kal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <7trivh$gu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Dan Fake"
><danf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> kathy wrote in message
>> <2d9ab73f.7ea39...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
>> >In article <7tm011$d8...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Dan Fake"
>> ><danf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> Myles wrote in message <37fe4...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
>> >> >What is your point in posting this?
>> >> To provide you with a perspective on the downsides of following
>> >> a futile faith. To lead you to ponder the possibility that your
>> >> faith is misplaced. You're at a fork in the road, each and every
>> >> moment of each and every day. Do you go down the path that
>> >> leads to truth -or- do you go down the path that leads to
>> futility?
Excuse me, but I'd like to interject something here, since this is a
public forum.
You call Christianity 'futile'. I have not found it futile. I don't
get all my prayers answered in a manner I'd like, true. But there have
been times, many of them, when I needed help 'right this second', and
it came, 'right that second'.
What's wrong with a faith that elevates us beyond ourselves?
You don't consider Christianity worthy? Fine. Then what is?
We Chrisitians look beyond oursleves and we see God. That you don't
see God may indicate your blindness more than our foolishness. You
would call me a fool? Fine. I've been called worse.
But I like an old saying I heard in my childhood. It goes something
like this:
There is no greater fool than the one who refuses to give up that
which he cannot keep (his life) in order to gain that which he cannot
lose (eternal life).
Just what are you atheists offering me that is superior to my faith? A
void? Nothing? 'REality?' ONly your very warped concept of reality.
No thanks. When I make 'choices', they make me a better person. I
truly don't see much that I want that's been contributed by atheists.
'Science', you say? Not so. I have worked in the scientific community
for many years as a Technical Writer. There are MANY Christians in
science. My brother-in-law was very high up in NSA (National
Security) as an engineer. He is a Christian.
Dr. Jim Dobson is a licensed Clinical Psychologist. He is a Christian.
A good friend of mine, an elder at my church in California, was an
engineer who worked on the Manhattan Project.
We believers aren't stupid. Many of us have lots of education. We are
doctors, lawyers, educators, nurses, engineers, just like
non-believers.
We choose to look above ourselves, and our search for Deity is
fruitful. You choose to look at yourselves as deity, and you call us
deluded?
>> >> >To convert christians to atheism?
>> >>See above
>> >Now who's preaching? Are you so arrogant that you can say
>> >100% positive that no God exists?
>> I am 100 percent positive that no god exists. Do
>> you have any evidence that would persuade me
>> otherwise?
Evidence? Of course, there is evidence of Deity! What kind do you
want?
But faith isn't a matter of evidence. You choose to not believe in
spite of the evidence for God. How many books have you read in your
life that promoted the concept of Deity? None, I bet.
I have read books, or parts of them, anyway, by famous atheists. They
were silly, circular reasoning. Bertrand Russell is one of the
silliest. He plays mind games.
>> >YOU MUST BE VERY PROUD OF YOURSELF FOR KNOWING 100% THAT WHICH YOU
>CAN'T PROVE.KINDA REMINDS ME OF A RELIGIOUS FANATIC.BUT DON'T WORRY I'M
>NOT CONVINCED.IF YOU WERE HALF AS SURE AS YOU CLAIM YOU WOULDN'T BE SO
>DEFENSIVE AND CLOSED MINDED ABOUT IT. Can you prove it (be careful
>greater men have
>> >tried).
>> How much proof do you require? If there is 1 in
>> a trillion to the trillionth power that anything even
>> close to the bible-based myths exists, I haven't
>> spotted it. Have you?
Yes, I have. I did my graduate work in theology.
But that's not the point. You wouldn't believe if Jesus came tomorrow
in the flesh.
'For the believer, no proof is necessary. For the non-believer, no
proof is adequate.'
>> >It is impossible to prove a negative.
>> Depends on how much proof you require. I'd say
>> reasonable men, *****sing the likelihood of silent
>> and invisible beings, acting in any way, shape, or
>> form, have come to the absolute conclusion that
>> such beings do not exist. *POOF*, one pops up?
So, here, you're sying that 'no reasonble men, accessing the
likelihood of silent invisible beings acting in any way shape or form'
have ever come to the conclusion that Deity exists? Who are you to
speak for ME? I came to the belief in Deity with my reason. I reasoned
that there was adequate proof of Deity from what I had experienced in
my life.
>> Then, let's talk. Until then, there's tons of evidence
>> the things were cooked up by humans to address
>> human needs and fears. Evidence the things exist?
>> I'M SORRY BUT YOUR WRONG.RESONABLE IS RELATIVE HERE BUT PLEANTY OF
> RESONABLE PEOPLE HAVE COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION
>HERE.NOSTRADAMUS,JANE ROBERTS,EDGAR CASEY TO NAME JUST A FEW AND AT
>LEAST TWO OF THESE DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE CHRISTIAN GOD.BUT IF THATS
>NOT ENOUGH THEN FIND OUT HOW MANY FEDERAL,STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTTAL
>AGENCIES ARE USING PSYCHICS TO HELP SOLVE CRIMES.IF YOU'VE NEVER HAD
>AN UNEXPLAINABLE OCCUR IN YOUR LIFE AND NOT KNOWN ANYONE ELSE THAN YOU
>ARE AMOUNG THE FEW.THERE ARE TWO MANY QUESTION MARKS,WHICH IS OK BUT
>TO IGNORE OR DENY THEM IS BEING CLOSED MINDED AND CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO
>FIND THE TRUTH.Zot.
Since when is the government ever an 'authority' on anything?
The very fact that the government employs witches is indication that
we are truly in the last days. I suppose you ignore the do***entation
(plenty existrs) that has been published in the books on fulfilled
Bible prophesy? The book The Late Great Planet Earth is a classis on
the subject. Forget Hal Lindsay's prognostications about the future.
His do***entation of fulfiled prophesy in the 20th C. is astounding
and thorough.
There has in fact been fulfilled Bible prophesy within the last 10
years. There was a end-times prophesy fulfilled during the Gulf War.
I think fulfilled Bible prophesy is an amazing proof of Deity.
I think the internal proofs of the Bible, which you will find fully
do***ented in Evidence That Demands A Verdict, by Josh McDowell, are
amazing, and strengthen my faith every time I open that book!
Did you know that the Bible OT) said the earth is round when the
prevailing science of the day had declared it flat?
>> >I hope you do not pretend
>> >to have the truth and if you don't know for sure why would
>> >you want to lead some one else astray?
>> I love truth. Don't you? I lead not to temptation, but to
>> the wondrous taste of truth. Be not tempted to toy with
>> truth, commit to it, seek it, as I have, and your thirst will
>> be quenched.
>> >I look at he bible to none of these things no more than Dickens
>> >or Shakespeare.It is a book.sometimes funny sometimes sad with
>> >a lot of lessons we can still apply to ourselves but just a book.
>> >I think you give it too much credit.
If it is 'just a book' then DISPROVE some of the Bible prophesies that
hav been fulfilled. show us the body of Jesus. His tomb is empty.
>> No, it's a book written by over 40 clueless and ancient
>> humans, with devious intent, lies, hate, manipulation,
>> and evil resulting from its propagation since the 3rd
>> century.
I have never heard such absurdity. How can the Bible be written by 40
'clueless men', yet it still very accurately describes men in the 20th
c.?
Your statement shows you know nothing of how the Bible was written.
The Bible's authors were not filled with 'devious intent, lies, hate,
manipulation, and evil' for one very good reason. They believed they
were recording God's words. And if any thing any of the writers of the
Old Testament had been shown to be false in the author's lifetime, his
writings were burned, and so was the author. These men were too
frightened of the Deity they knew to write anything other than the
Divine truths they were instructed to write.
>> >I can empathize with you.You must have had it rough growing up
>> >as a preachers son.but please look into your heart and get rid of
>> >the hate.
I don't see as much hate in the church as I see in your words.
>> I love humanity and the truth. Your bible is full of hate
show me hate in the Bible, please. I see God constantly giving mankind
love, and mankind constantly spitting in God's face and going their
own way.
>> and your faith is full of the bible-based hate myth.
again, what hate?
>> Face reality.
>> >It will never serve you well. If you truly are an atheists you
>> know
>> >it is up to us to make the world better but we have to start with
>> >ourselves.
please show me how self-wor****p, as atheists practice, makes you or
your world better?
>> >Let's stop criticizing each other and poking fun at each others
>> >beliefs and start getting along.We're all in this together.
>> You've said your bible is little more that a book with
>> as much relevance as a Dickens' tale so please enlighten
>> us on what it is you're requesting I go along with. The
>> bible? No thanks. Bible based belief? No thanks.
>> Humanism? That, I like.
Wonderful. And where would the humanists lead us? Whence we came, back
into the mud? You aren't going to lead me to Heaven. That is my goal.
And I see it just up ahead. In fac t, the day my mom died, God opened
heaven up and showed her inside from her hospital bed. The last things
she said were, 'I see the saints.' Then she said 'the saints are
coming.' Her last words were, 'the saints are here.'
Funny statements from a mentally ill woman who thought she was going
to hell when she died.
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> TO BEGIN WITH IF YOU WEREN'T SO CLOSED MINDED AND REALLY READ THIS
>YOU WOULD SEE THAT I'M NOT CHRISTIAN OR ANY RELIGION.LOOK CLOSER I SAID
>THE BIBLE IS A BOOK-NOT SACRED-NOT GOD INSPIRED BUT A BOOK.I ALSO SAID
>THAT IF YOU ARE AN ATHEIST YOU KNOW IT IS UP TO US (EMPHISES ON US)TO
>MAKE THIS A BETTER WORLD.
>IF YOU THINK THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN TO DECIEVE AND THAT RELIGION IS TO
>EASE DOUBT AND FEAR THAN YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT RELIGION.THERE
>ARE LOTS OF RELIGIONS THAT DON'T FIT THIS CATAGORY AND EVEN THOSE THAT
>DO ARN'T DEFINED BY THAT ALONE.
>I THINK YOUR ANGRY AT YOUR FATHER AND STRIKING OUT AT HIM BY PUTTING
>DOWN THE THING HE LOVES MOST.ONE THING IS FOR SURE ANYONE AS CLOSED
>MINDED AS YOU ARE CAN NEVER HAVE A CLAIM TO THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.
>SO I SAY AGAIN PROVE THERE IS NO GOD.I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS BUT
>YOUR SAYING THERE IS NOT SO THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.
>HAVE FUN[skipped remainder as no further comments were made
>> by kathy to the remainder of the post]
>> Enslave not your mind and free your soul.
>> Know no god and know the truth.
>> Is humanity guilty, by and large, of following
>> non-existent deity figures in fear and hate, wasting
>> their lives away in futile wor****p and pointless
>> endeavors to minimize pleasure and perpetuate
>> myth? Yes. Is that my conclusion, beyond any
>> reasonable doubt, so help humankind, as no god
>> is my witness? Yes.
>> ---
>> -Dan Fake, Atheist #1468 - Freethinker #2b - Humanist #2b2
>
>
>
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com
The Internet's Discussion
Network *
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
From: jaywe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(jay west)
Subject: Post on Heaven/Hell
Date: 1999/11/16
Message-ID: <38317d60.4252667@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 549306198
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 942767712 207.224.252.142 (Tue, 16 Nov 1999
09:55:12 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:55:12 CST
Newsgroups: alt.agnosticism
Sad how some people play with the free gift of eternal life!
And what has God done to any of us to merit such ridiculous ridiclue?
He loved us so much He took human form to die for us.
Terrible!
He offers life, and abundant life, to all who would accept it.
He merely asks us to acknowledge a Being greater than ourselves.
That's a tough one! Someone Greater than oursevles.
So atheism/agnosticism are really an ego trip, not wanting to
acknowledge a Benevolent Being greater than ourselves. Is there proof
that He is there? Sure. Does the atheist care that God can be proved?
No. The atheist isn't interested in Deity. Why? Because he has this
sick notion that to acknowledge Deity would take all the fun out of
life! Says who? I don't know, other than Satan. I can have all the fun
I want, and be a Christian. Becuase a normal person ( A Christian)
doesn't want to do evil things like rape, and murder, and bank
robbery, and hurting people for kicks. The Christian can have all the
fun he wants, as long as he stays within the law. And when he breaks
God's law, there is this thiing called 'forgiveness', based on a thing
called 'Grace'. These are admittedly terrible concepts, I understand.
But they're why I'm a Christian.
johnw
In article <80b5ro$qm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Oldguyteck"
<granpap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Sniper wrote in message <3828E8FD.7659F...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
> >Dan Fake wrote:
> >>
> >> Crosspost: agnosticism, atheism, christian, islam
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Pick your favorite hell from the following
> >> hellacious choices offered by Zoroastrianism,
> >> Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism,
> >> and Buddhism
> >>
> >> -or-
> >>
> >> turn to Atheism and free your soul from humankind's
> >> hatemongering, fearmongering, revengemongering,
> >> and blackmailing past ...
> >>
> >> From Merriam-Webster's History of World Religions
> >> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877790442
> >> Hardcover - 1248 pages (September 1999)
> >>
> >> Excerpts from the article on HELL...
> >>
> >> HELL, the abode or state of existence of beings that
> >> are damned to postmortem punishment. The word
> >> hell, like cognate words in other Germanic languages,
> >> is descended from a Common Germanic name for
> >> the abode of the dead that was transferred to
> >> Christian concepts of a place reserved for the
> >> souls of the damned. ...
> >>
> >> The view that hell is the final dwelling place of the
> >> damned after a last judgment is held by Zoroastrianism,
> >> Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
> >>
> >> In Zoroastrianism, the soul at death waits three
> >> nights to be judged and on the fourth day goes to
> >> the Bridge of the Requitter, where its deeds in life
> >> are weighed. If the good outweighs the evil, the
> >> soul crosses the bridge, which becomes broad,
> >> and goes to heaven; if the evil deeds are greater,
> >> the bridge becomes too narrow to cross and the
> >> soul falls into a freezing and malodorous hell
> >> to suffer torment and chastisement until the
> >> resurrection. ...
> >>
> >> Judaism, as it developed from Hellenistic times,
> >> viewed hell in terms of Gehenna, an infernal
> >> region of punishment for the wicked.
> >>
> >> The Christian view of hell, based on Jewish
> >> concepts, regarded hell as the fiery domain of
> >> the Devil and his evil angels, a place of eternal
> >> damnation for those who have lived a life of sin
> >> and who thereby deny God. Some early
> >> Christian thinkers, such as Origen of Alexandria
> >> and Gregory of Nysa, questioned the eternity
> >> of hell and the literalistic view that hell was a
> >> place of a fiery afterlife. The majority of Christian
> >> thinkers, however, taught that hell is a state of
> >> punishment for those who die unrepentant of
> >> their sins. Some modern theologians have again
> >> questioned the literalistic view but still hold
> >> that hell is, at least, a state of separation of
> >> the wicked from the good.
> >>
> >> Islam, basing its concepts of hell, Jahannam,
> >> on Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity,
> >> describes it as a huge crater of fire beneath
> >> a narrow bridge that all souls must pass over
> >> to go to paradise. The damned fall from the
> >> bridge and suffer torments, unless God wills
> >> otherwise.
> >>
> >> In Hinduism, hell is only one stage in a career
> >> of the soul. Because all actions have conse-
> >> quences and because of reincarnation, the time
> >> spent in one or more of the 21 hells beneath the
> >> netherworld is not eternal. Eventually, the soul
> >> will return to the World (or Ultimate) Soul, even
> >> though it takes many life periods to do so.
> >>
> >> The Jaina hell (bhumis) is a place where demons
> >> torture sinners until any evil ac***ulated during
> >> their lives has been exhausted.
> >>
> >> In Buddhism, multiple hells correspond to
> >> karmavacara, the cosmic realm in which the five
> >> senses may be experienced in a variety of bodies
> >> and perceptions.
> >
> >Let's not forget to mention Usenet hell, which is a
> >newsgroup full of fundy proselytizers.
> >
> That comparison is no [match]..................... :)
This is correct. Your religious hells can be avoided by ardent prayer,
good works, faith and accepting whatever ridiculous tenets your
particulare religion holds. There is nothing that works against the
usenet hell.
> Ed....................(Oldguyteck) Ý
> Don't play with fire.
Slightly better, but still not really ed-like. You really should go
back into the DejaNews archives and read a lot of the real ed's posts
so you can get the right context and flavor.
Just out of curiousity, could you tell me why 1: you decided to
pretend
to be someone else, and 2: why ed?
dotcom, off...
yes, I am an atheist, and no, I don't want to hear about jeeezus
E-mail about my newsgroup posts may be posted to that newsgroup
There is no god worth our wor****p. - Martin Schlottmann
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com
The Internet's Discussion
Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
From: jaywe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(jay west)
Subject: Is There a God?
Date: 1999/11/16
Message-ID: <38318138.5236817@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 549313873
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 942768543 207.224.252.142 (Tue, 16 Nov 1999
10:09:03 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:09:03 CST
Newsgroups: alt.agnosticism
Jesus/God really didn't give us any options here.
He said, 'choose this day whom you will serve (God or Satan/man).'
If you die today, then you have made your choice by 'not choosing'.
All your logic and philosophy are irrelevent. You have chosen to not
believe. And there is SO MUCH evidence for God and Chrsit and the
Bible. It is truly foolish to elect to 'withhold deciding'.
johnw
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 02:27:09 -0600, egor <e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>There seems to be a plethora of pseudo scientists who post here,
thinking
>they alone are capable of basic logic. Somehow atheists have fooled
themselves
>into believing that they are more rational than their theistic
counterparts.
>Nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s take the claim of most of
the
>posters here: “There is only belief, or disbelief, and nothing in
between”. If
>you’re undecided, they will tell you, in their semantically sneaky
fa****on,
>it’s still disbelief. (IOW, If you’re withholding belief about god,
you’re
>still an atheist). Well, let’s look at this a little closer by taking a
>hypothetical, yet quite possible, situation:
>
>A baseball game just ended. You see two people and ask them who won the
game.
>The first one says “the Yankie’s won”, the second one said “the Yankie’s
>lost”.
>Until you can substantiate their obviously contradictory claims, you
elect to
>withhold judgment, as the two of them appear equally credible. Now, many
of
>you
>automatons have been insisting that this suspension of belief is the
same thing
>as disbelief. Ok, let’s say for the sake of this conversation you are
correct.
>
>Let Y = Yankie’s won
>Let L = Yankie’s lost
>
>The person in the above scenario neither believes Y, nor do they believe
L,
>they
>*do* believe that either one (in this case), is equally credible.
The only way in which both cases are equally credible is if both cases
are
wrong. Otherwise, one case is absolutely credible and the other is
absolutely
false. To assign _contradictory_ possibilities equal "credibility" is
to admit
that neither possibiliy is right.
But assigning credibility to claims that can't be right makes no
sense, so if
one did assign credibility to one of the two possibilities in your
above
scenario it would be because he believes one of them is _right_.
>They
>neither
>believe that the Yankie’s won, nor do they believe that the Yankie’s did
not win.
Then they must believe the Yankees tied or that the game was called
with neither
team winning/losing. In other words, they have NOT suspended belief in
the two
contradictory claims with which they were presented - they have indeed
evaluated
those two claims and found that neither were credible.
>Now, let’s have Y = gods exist, and L = gods don’t exist. The above
person neither
>believes gods exist, nor does he believe that gods don’t exist.
According to all
>you yahoos, he would be a weak atheist.
Your analogy falls apart right here. In your baseball analogy, there
exist three
conditions for the resolution of the game with respect to the Yankees:
they won,
they lost, they neither won nor lost.
Existence is an either/or proposistion. Something either exists OR it
doesn't.
There is no alternative to existence or non-existence. Your baseball
analogy
fails when it is applied to question of existence.
You should've seen that for yourself.
While it's true that something either exists or it doesn't, belief in
the
existence of a thing is another matter entirely. Here, there ARE more
than just
two possibilities. Some theists conclude that gods exist because there
is
evidence to sup****t that conclusion; other theists are not concerned
with
evidence and ground their belief in faith alone. Some atheists
conclude that
there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief in gods; other
atheists
conclude that the evidence precludes the existence of gods. Agnostics
believe
the evidence is inconclusive one way or the other.
-- john caballero
From: jaywe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(jay west)
Subject: RE: Where Did The Univese Come From?
Date: 1999/11/16
Message-ID: <38317ec1.4606032@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 549309762
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 942768323 207.224.252.142 (Tue, 16 Nov 1999
10:05:23 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:05:23 CST
Newsgroups: alt.agnosticism
The simplest answer, and probably the funniest answer to the absurdity
of evolution is this:
If you believe in evolution, then you believe the one about the
princess who kissed the frog and he turned into a prince. Same story
as evolution, just a difference in time it took for the 'big event' to
happen. You guys make it sound like all scientists are evolutionists.
Which just plain isn't true. And there are major debates among the
scientists as to what happened 'way back then'. All it seems they can
agree on is that 'God didn't create everything', 'it just happened'.
Why would they be so adamant? Because not believing in God, believing
in evolution, is as much a statement of faith as Creation.
I have asked numerous 'scientists' why they would prefer to believe in
evolution than in creation. What I have heard was, ' I prefer
evolution because I don't believe in God.'
Well, first of all, 'I prefer' is a dead give-away that what follows
is a statement of philosophy, not science. 'I believe in God' or 'I
don't believe in God', are also philosophy statements, not statements
of science.
And there are plenty of scientists who are Christians. So it's not
like no scientist believes in God or in creation. Many do.
John Glen, one of our first astronauts, and one of the most recent, is
a Christian. Colonel Jim Irwin, one of the scientists / astronauts who
went to the moon, was a Christian. Gus Grissom, the guy who was in the
capsule that sank into the ocean, was a Christian.
I had a friend, an elder in my church, who worked at Los Alamos on the
A-bomb. He had proved both creation and the universal flood
scientifically. Yet, because he wasn't a member of the evolution club,
he could not get his papers or his books published, scientific tho
they were. Shouldn't all 'scientists' be open to both points of view
if there's evidence? Shouldn't we look at the evidence for creation?
Apparently those who would have us believe in evolution don't believe
in keeping an open mind. And I thought a scientist examines all
available data? I've talked with quite a few 'scientists' who would
not even look at my data for creation. That's not science!
johnw
johnw
From: jaywe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(jay west)
Subject: RE: A Question for Atheists
Date: 1999/11/16
Message-ID: <38317aea.3623170@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 549306196
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 942767306 207.224.252.142 (Tue, 16 Nov 1999
09:48:26 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:48:26 CST
Newsgroups: alt.agnosticism
Please note, first, that this appears to be a group for agnostics, not
a group for atheists.
That said, I'll cut and paste the note I'm commenting on, then
comment.
johnw
In article <38292F24.B5AF8...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
egor <e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>Paul King wrote:
>>
>> In article <38283D0A.71A65...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> egor <e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >Being in a place where you neither believe, nor disbelieve, but
instead
>> >withold judgement is not disbelief.
If we apply the scriptural standard, which I believe is all that
matters in the end, and the position I believe most atheists/agnostics
fight against (rather than say a Buddhist or Christian Scientist
view), the Bible says very clearly, 'choose this day whom you will
serve (God or man/Satan)'. God/Christ doesn't give us the option of
'not choosing/not believing/not deciding.' The evidence is all there,
the decision is very clear. You will believe in Christ or Buddah or
Con****ious TODAY, or if you walk in front of a Mac truck, and you are
killed, the choice is made for you. It is foolish to believe that 'not
choosing' is a 'choice'. What if you die before 'you decide'?
The choice to follow the living Christ is easy. One has only to admit
the possibility exists of Someone beyond ourselves. Take the attutude,
'I'll try Christ'. He invites us to prove Him. Why not do so? The
choice is eternal life or not. Doesn't seem much like a choice to me.
However, I believe the crux boils down to this:
I will serve God as I understand Him, or I will serve only myself.
That doesn't seem much of a chioce either, particularly when the
Christian God promises us 'life, and life abundantly'. He also
promises us 'eternal life' with rewards in Heaven that will make life
here pale by comparison. Do you supposed God is bored 24/7/365?
No! Of course not. He has all the entertainment He/Creator can think
up. So why would He leave us bored? He will provide us more
entertainment than any of us can imagine, and I have already figured
out what I'm going to do with the 1st 30 or 40 years I'm in Heaven.
If He has better things for me to do, and I agree that His choices are
better than mine, well then!
Christians aren't perfect; we're just forgiven.
johnw
>>
>> Oh, dear another fundamentalist agnostic.
>>
>> Here's the Websters definition of "disbelieve".
>>
>> dis.be.lieve vt (ca. 1644): to hold not worthy of belief: not believe
~ vi:
>> to withhold or reject belief
>
>To withhold judgement is not the same as disbelieving.
Websters disagrees. "Disbelieve" covers both believing the negation
and
taking no position on the mattter.
I've covered this in
>another post, but here's the cliff notes version:
>
>You hear a baseball game's just ended. You ask two people who's won. One
of
>them says the Yankie's won, the other says the Yankie's lost. By your
>definition, you would disbelieve the Yankie's won, *and* also disbelieve
the
>Yankie's didn't win, which doesn't say very much about your belief one
way
>or the other, does it?
Someone who withheld judgement would indeed fit that description.
Because
they did not *believe* either that the Yankees did or did not win.
Since
they *have* no belief one way or the other there isn't anything else
*to*
say about it.
>
>Do you think this makes any more sense when it comes to claims about
(weak)
>atheism? If so, you're not saying anything of substance when you claim
to
>be one, (a weak atheist, that is).
So having been proven wrong concerning the definition of "disbelieve"
you
are now essentially arguing that it is not possible to withhold
judgement.
Web Images Groups News more »
alt.religion.christian.baptist > A Serpent vs. John W. was Re: A
Christian vs.
John Weatherly - View Parsed
Show only message text
Path: sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!news-
out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!
not-for-mail
From: John W <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
Subject: Re: A Serpent vs. John W. was Re: A Christian vs. John Weatherly
Message-ID: <38j1gvgs48fqj8tv73ra6ejjk1hcu6du2u@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
References: <xq1La.185229$jp.4893388@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<6acpfvsrkqa55vu7kkcueesld9ai40qhv2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<l2hpfvg2med06qq725gj837tpb36273b7g@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <b0iLa.338365$Vi5.8578852
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <OHiLa.7697$OE2.1002807@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<l4csfv09ogokhc8c9jnousea3coto1emoe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <kNDLa.316480$3C2.8651924
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <nlqufv4ttmkatpua0g79lq7j0hb7m15pnm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<cp01gvgp16erbcmrblfdpie5qtn8n6me26@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<3661gv01u60eb5ma89ntl1q0afe97hhnqj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 70
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:52:53 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.228.119.245
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1057017174 12.228.119.245 (Mon, 30 Jun 2003
18:52:54 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:52:54 CDT
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:09:47 -0400, nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>rn Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:39:34 -0700, John W
><john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> spake thusly in these here little old
>news 'froups:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:40:13 -0400, nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:42:08 GMT, "Karen" <don'tspa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>spake thusly in these here little old news 'froups:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Doc,
>>>>
>>>>Don't waste your time on Uniacke. He's got nothing to say of value
>>>to me.
>>>>Just ignore him. He himself has yet to post anything Godly that
>would
>>>lead
>>>>anyone to Christ and he knows it. The serpent he writes about is
>>>himself.
>>>>
>>>>God bless
>>>>Karen
>>>AMEN, Sister....... AMEN.
>>\
>>
>>Sad, sad, sad, we are back to this. Those who call
>>themselvers/ourselves "christ's" are again feasting on each other's
>>entrails.
>>
>>Over non-essentials.
>>
>>We were doing this a month ago, and then once accepted the peace
>>frequently offered, and then she extended a "olive branch".
>>Unfortunately the hidden message attached was, "you always have to
>>agree with me about everything).
>>
>>And here we are again, fighting over the freedom to express
>ourselves.
>>
>>
>>Now not only must we strive to please God, we must strive to please
>>everyone in here as well..
>>
>>I think not.
>>
>>John W
>
>John no one is saying anyone cannot express themselves. Again, let me
>assure you that the olive branch I extended WAS sincere. I am so sorry
>you refuse to accept that.
>I will continue to pray for you, in hopes that things will ease for
>you, John.
>
>God bless
>Elaine
Nonsense, Elaine. Your last 20 posts or so indicate CLEARLY that we
will be at peace ONLY so long as you are allowed to be in control of
the contents of each post.
I don't buy that, so the olive branch with a condition is rejected.
John W
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>JESUS is the ROCK<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: John W <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups:
alt.talk.creationism,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religio
n.christian-teen,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
Subject: Re: Pictures of a 525 AD Church (as claimed by John W)???
Message-ID: <38rdjvg7mddn8s1r7jp48vldb1e22c86ui@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
References: <27eaec6.0308091632.1ecdc654@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<3F3667AA.7070104@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <kcadjv8qp0i8fb27b063rp14svo77amug7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <v2edjv8en5fo9rmpcls9ltl0mr2bf1itiu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <grandnational-
1108031013550001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: news1.uncensored-news.com
Lines: 103
X-Re****t-Abuse-To: a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send only the header of the
offending post, DO NOT attach any file.
X-Comment: NOTICE: Uncensored-News.Com does not condone, nor sup****t,
spam, illegal or copyrighted postings.
X-T.O.S.: http://www.uncensored-news.com/terms.html
Date: 11 Aug 2003 01:07:09 GMT
Organization: Uncensored-News.Com $9.95 Uncensored Newsgroups.
Path: sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-08supernews.com!
feed.uncensored-news.com!news1.uncensored-news.com!news1.uncensored-
news.com!not-for-mail
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:13:55 +1100, grandnatio...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(
Phar-Lap) wrote:
>In article <v2edjv8en5fo9rmpcls9ltl0mr2bf1i...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, John W
><john_weathe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> He went hundreds of miles to do***ent a national treasure, and yet
>> only gave himself a hour to get to two bases 30 miles or less apart?
>> He gave no indication that he looked between the rows of buildings. No
>> peek out the back gate?
>>
>> Andrew wasn't serious.
>>
>> The church is there. Or was.
>>
>> God bless,
>>
>>
>> John W
>
>Listen mate this is getting dafter by the minute
Do you mind, Phar Lap, if I go on ignoring your dribble as I have been
doing on any serious subject?
>
>Once again I agree there may be such a Church but you also attatched an
>idiotic history to it placing the foundation of the Baptist Church
>somewhere between about AD30 and AD500.
I'm not sure I said that, but I believe it, yes.
The church which appears to have
>gone for a drive was supposed to be evidence for this particular piece
of
>nonsense
In fact, that was NOT my intent in the post.
My intent in the post was a 6th C NON Catholic church. I said, and I
repeat, I do not recall if the church's name was engraved in the
building or not.
, and proof that the origins of the Baptist Church do not lie in
>the Protestant Reformation and the earlier history of Catholicism and of
>Orthodoxy (before the events leading to the Great Schism)
That part is true. There are baptists in the New Testament, and there
are Church of Christ in the New Testament. There are also
"Christians"; I see no hide nor hair of the Roman Catholic church, so
it could not POSSIBLY be the one Christ founded.
And today's Roman Catholic religion bears no slight resemblance to the
one in the New Testament. It's the one in the New Testament I worry
about following.
>
>So maybe you would like to help clean this up by admitting this history
is
>of the same quality as the missing memories that you say you "want" -
>that is not all there
I have nothing to admit. I have given as accurate a representation as
I am able. And will you be apologetic when my sources arrange the
pictures, and I post them?
I think I may even see the church in question in the pictures in which
Andrew assured me they were not. I am merely taking Andrews word for
the time being that it's not the church. But with MY sources, I should
know in a month or less.
>
>And in the meantime this formerly Orthodox Church may well turn up -
>albeit I rather doubt it in this location.
>
>A Church of this age would probably have been closer to the sea and
>furthermore a site of this im****tance would invariably be marked with a
>plaque of some kind in England even were there not a single brick
standing
>or even had the church gone for a drive up the road.
>
>
Conjecture conjecture conjecture, and from h ow many THOUSANDS of
miles away?
We do like to pretend expert on everything about which we have an
opinion, do we not, Phar Lap?
Why not just get on the winning side and believe me?
Did you try to contact Dr. McBirnie yet?
John W
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: David Grimes, A Roman Catholic and Heretic
Date: 2000/04/29
Message-ID: <390BA49B.991AFD62@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 617373522
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <390707AE.5733ADF5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sge2jmoeqgc88
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <39078EC6.346ABCE0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sgh083a1qtj138
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 957064278 63.225.165.229 (Sat, 29 Apr 2000
22:11:18 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 22:11:18 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
Juggernaut wrote:
>
> Well, John 3:5 clearly says that baptism will bring us into the kingdom
of
> God, and thus we are reborn.
John 3:5 says unless a *man* is born of water (physical birth possibly,
or water
baptism perhaps) *and of the Spirit*, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.
This
verse says nothing about infants. It refers to a grown adult "man" (or
woman).
Contrary to your false contention above, the verse you refer to clearly
teaches
baptism of believers, not infants. And John 3:16 says we must believe to
be
re-born. An infant can't "believe", much less be reborn.
>
> As for infant baptism, baptisms were performed on entire households in
the
> New Testament, which most likely had small children. Also, Paul argues
in
> his epistles that baptism now replaces cir***cision as the sign of the
> covenant. So, since babies were cir***sised, so are babies baptized.
>
"...which most likely had small children..." is your assumption, not a
statement
in scripture. And while Paul argues that "baptism replaces cir***cision",
there
is no statement made that baptism takes place or should take place at
birth. And
while cir***cision may have been a symbol of the Abrahamic covenant, it
didn't
save anyone. It only indicated that the one being cir***cised/or the one
cir***cised, was a Jew or had been born to a Jewish household. Baptist of
believer was what was specified in the New Testament, as Jesus Himself
said in
Matthew 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who does
not
believe will be condemned." The issue was not being baptized as an
infant. The
issue was to believe and to evidence that belief by being baptized.
However, I will not continue to debate this. You will believe whatever
the RCC
pagan religion tells you to believe, and you will not believe whatever
the RCC
pagan religion tells you to NOT believe!
>
> And you can't be a Catholic, unless you believe in God.
I undestand that. However, as I have alreasdy alluded, I have personally
talked
with numerous RCCs who would NEVER admit to being born again. When I
asked them
if they were born again, according to John 3:16, believeing on Jesus
Christ for
their salavtion, they all said they didn't hvae to be born again. They
were
Catholic! Jesus said, No one can get to heaven unless he is born again.
John
3:16 says you must believe to be born again. Infants can't believe.
>
>
> Now, I might ask you, what happens to little children if they die
before
> they believe in your religion?
>
The Bible teaches that before children reach the age at which they
understand
what salvation is all about, they are without sin. We doin't believe in
"original sin" as do Roman Catholics. Children who are innocent--those
who don't
yet understand right and wrong--aren't going to hell when they die. Read
King
David's comments on the death of his child born of adultery. King David
said,
"My son cannot come back to me! I will go to him!"
God had told King David that he would see his infant son again, in
Heaven!
>
> >
> > This is one of the many anti-scriptural, pagan heresies we call Roman
> > Catholicism.
> >
> > john weatherly
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> >
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: David Grimes, A Roman Catholic and Heretic
Date: 2000/04/29
Message-ID: <390BA55C.1ADD999D@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 617374072
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <390707AE.5733ADF5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sge2jmoeqgc88
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <39078EC6.346ABCE0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Hw2O4.36584
$fV.2233706@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 957064468 63.225.165.229 (Sat, 29 Apr 2000
22:14:28 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 22:14:28 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
Nowhere do we find any commandment for Christian parents to baptize
their infants.
john weatherly
Orthodox wrote:
> John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:39078EC6.346ABCE0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Baptizing infants doesn't count as "being born again", since Jesus
> specified
> > that we must "believe".
>
> The parents of the infant being baptized believe, and they are being
> obedient to the Word of God.
>
> Orthodox
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: David Grimes, A Roman Catholic and Heretic
Date: 2000/04/29
Message-ID: <390BA62E.3617EB4E@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 617375120
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <390707AE.5733ADF5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <omFN4.864$d73.14523
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <39079856.93BEAB60@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Iw2O4.36585
$fV.2232588@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 957064679 63.225.165.229 (Sat, 29 Apr 2000
22:17:59 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 22:17:59 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
Either you are a liar, orthodox, or you just don't know what you are
talking
about.
I have read in the RCC Encyclopedia, that Mary is considered the 4th
person of
the Trinity, since she was the Mother of God. The RCC Encyclopedia also
made it
clear that she was born of a virgin as well as Christ was. These
teachings
clearly represent Mary's deity whether you wish to accept the end result
of your
religion's teachings or not.
john weatherly
Orthodox wrote:
> John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:39079856.93BEAB60@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Wor****ping Mary as the Blessed Virgin, and Mother of God is also
pagan.
> Mary is
> > not God.
>
> Neither the Roman Catholics, nor the Orthodox, wor****p Mary. It is
possible
> that some of the Protestant cults do, however.
>
> And both Roman Catholics and the Orthodox know that Mary is not God.
It is
> possible that some of the Protestant cults think she is, however.
>
> Orthodox
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: OJ Simpson was innocent!
Date: 2000/04/29
Message-ID: <390B9E9F.3D687AA0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 617368315
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <sgdjlpclcdo136@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 957062743 63.225.165.229 (Sat, 29 Apr 2000
21:45:43 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 21:45:43 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church
I don't know what OJ has to do with the boston church, but in case you
hadn't heard, K2000, O.J. admitted he murdered Nicole awhile back. Since
he can't be retried under the American legal system, he let it slip
during an interview over a year ago. O J may not even realize that he
admitted murdering Nicole and Ron, but he did.
The re****ter was interviewing him, and he asked OJ why he didn't just
admit that he'd killed Nicole and Ron, now that he can't be prosecuted.
O.J said, "Well, I didn't kill her, and I'll never admit that I did, but
if I did, it was only because I loved her so much." In case you don't
follow the line of discussion, that statement constitutes an admission
of guilt.
Just thought you might appreciate that update, K2000. O J has publicly
admitted killing his ex-. I don't know if he even realizes that he
admitted it, but he admitted it.
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> that's right, a jury of his peers found him not guilty
>
> old news?
>
> yeah
>
> but it's worth repeating
>
> k
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Thou shalt not thump your bible...
Date: 2000/04/26
Message-ID: <390798FB.3E89BBB@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 616157686
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8e77ll$fpj$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956799124 63.225.167.220 (Wed, 26 Apr 2000
20:32:04 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:32:04 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.mtv-
sucks,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.baptist
Let me clue you, you immature, gutter mouth cretin!
In a few years, when Jesus comes back, you will care.
John 3:16
For God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son, so that
whoever
believes on Him should not perish but shall have eternal life."
I don't expect you to believe, but now, you've heard the Gospel, so I
will not
be blamed for not having told you.
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sub One Genius wrote:
> "He said 'You're long gone, can't you tell?' and I said 'Mister, if I'm
> going, I'll see you in hell!" -Gene Simmons, 1992
>
> Bible thumpers have this tendency to tell me that I'm going to hell if
I
> don't repent my sins. Who are they to judge? I thought judgement day
was
> the second coming of Christ, not having some religious puke wanting to
shove
> his/her beliefs down my ****ing throat!!!
>
> Let me let you in on a little secret about these overly-religous bible
> thumping Christian assholes - They aren't the son of man, they aren't
> teaching the "REAL" word of the holy bible, and as far as what they
have to
> say - I'M NEVER GOING TO GIVE A ****!!
>
> Thank you and save your prayers!!
>
> Senator Sub One Genius
>
> --
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> "There is always a certain meanness in the argument of conservatism,
> joined with a certain superiority of its fact."
> -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, lecture, December 9, 1841
>
> "The more people you have watching your back, the more you'll have
> to watch your own back" - Unknown Sicilian Professor, date n/a
>
> "Nowhere in the Bible is intelligence praised as a virtue."
> -Marilyn Manson from Rolling Stone, 1999
> #################################################
> Signed by: Senator Sub One Genius
> Check out my website: http://bleegen.home.sprynet.com/
and don't
> forget to SIGN MY GUESTBOOK
> Politics Page is located at
http://bleegen.home.sprynet.com/politics.htm
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Our Blessed Lady
Date: 2000/04/26
Message-ID: <390713D6.99FAC9DD@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Deja-AN: 615952494
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <TtKK4.5891$xA.16251@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38fb87cc.9437048
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38fcf965.1542964@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <HGgL4.23295
$fV.1252314@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38fdd954.5108739
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956765041 207.224.254.68 (Wed, 26 Apr 2000
11:04:01 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:04:01 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-
catholic,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian.east-
orthodox,alt.religion.christian.presbyterian,alt.religion.christian.bapti
st,alt.bible
Matthew 12:47 says that while Jesus was preaching one day, someone told
Him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to
you."
The Bible itself says Jesus had brothers. I believe elsewhere it says He
also had sisters.
The reason the RCC pagan religion wants to deify Mary (and rob Joseph of
his lawful wife) is that they consider *** evil, even within marriage.
The only thing RCC pagans believe makes *** in marriage okay is that it
produces children (more
little Catholics). So the RCC pagan religion has outlawed any *** that
doesn't allow for pro-creation. Forget pleasrure! This also means that,
once a man and his wife have found out that she's pregnant, even if she's
only a month pregnant,
any more *** before she's capable of being impregnated again is evil,
since the only valid reason within RCCism for *** is for procreation. If
you don't believe this one, ask your bishop!
But the Bible also makes it very clear that Mary and Joseph *did* have
intercourse, since it remarks that Joseph took Mary home to be his wife,
but had no union with her "until after she had given birth to Jesus".
Matthew 1:24-25
This passage *clearly* states that Joseph and Mary had marital relations.
Since there was no birth control in those days, we can assume that other
children would have been the natural result of Joseph and Mary having
intercourse, which
Matthew re****ts that they did, as husband and wife.
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Townsend wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2000, "Orthodox" wrote:
>
> alias "orthodox" :
> >Modern-day "reformers" now even twist and deform the teachings of
*Luther*,
> >in their desperate attempt to get rid of the wrinkles in their man-
made dogma.
>
> Do you have any actual examples of these supposed "man-made dogmas" of
"modern-day
> reformers", or are you merely emitting warm smelly effluent ?
>
> alias "orthodox" :
> >Not only are many of today's various Protestant sects ignorant of the
writings
> >of the early Church fathers, they are also ignorant of the writings of
Luther.
>
> Even worse than that, many of today's various "orthodox" cults are
ignorant of the
> writings of the Reformers such as Hus, Wiclif, Luyher, Calvin, not to
mention the
> writings of John Owen, Arthur Pink, Thomas Dabney, Sibbes, Charnock,
Edwards etc.
>
> alias "orthodox" :
> >Today's Protestant realm (over 20,000 sects and still counting) has
truly become the >"Land of a million popes".
>
> Where did you dredge your figures from ? Wisden's "Cricket Almanac" ?
> The last time someone quoted "the number of protestant sects" it was
"34,000" and
> before that, it was "40,000". So it's good to know that the number is
reducing.
>
> Not that these figures mean much because they're mainly local
congregations just as
> there were local congregations in the first century AD; e.g. at Berea,
Philippi,
> Colossae, Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonika, etc. Yet these local
churches were all
> included in Christ's one universal Church by virtue of their common
faith in Christ
> Jesus and they held to the one faith once delivered to tyhe people of
GOD. [ refer to
> Letter to Jude 3 ] On that basis, it doesn't matter if there are a
hundred million
> local congregations; but the more the better, because it proves that
Christ's great
> Commission and the Gospel of Christ have taken root as Christ requires.
>
> Get rid of the unBiblical and naive idea that Christ's one true Church
is a
> bureaucracy squatting in Rome or in Constantinople or in Moscow, and
that it's
> controlled by a caste of men play-acting as "e***enical patriarchs" or
"monsignors"
> or "cardinals" etc. all wearing women's long pretty dresses with big
hats, purple
> ****rts and brass crosses and waving "ikons". That's notging but a
heathenish
> make-believe "fancy-dress religion" out of the pages of paganism, and
has no
> nonnection with Christor with Christ's true Church, however much you
so-called
> "orthodoxists" like to pretend otherwise.
>
> alias "orthodox" :
> >Thank you for sharing your thought[less] post with us, johann.
>
> Johann :
> >As a Lutheran observer of the Orthodox Group, may I add that even
> >Luther himself assures us that Mary had but one child...Jesus.
>
> Luther never entirely rid himself of the deadly infection of "roman-
catholicism".
>
> Johann :
> >The "brothers" are sons of the older Joseph and hence Jesus must tell
> >his "brother" at the cross to take of Mary as his "mother," as Jewish
> >Law would not have required him to take care of her...she was not the
> >brother's mother, she was Christ's mother.
>
> The New Testament tells us that John the apostle was the son of
Zebedee; not the son
> of Joseph.
>
> Jesus deputed John the apostle [ "the beloved disciple" to care for
Mary in ther
> place of Jesus because Jesus was about to die, and though Jesus would
be raised from
> death, He would soon be ascending to GOD the Father.
>
> Johann :
> >Over the years in some non-Lutheran protestant circles the notion that
> >the "Bible teaches that Mary had more children" has been paraded
> >around, probably to diminish the role of the Virgin
>
> Once Jesus had been born, there was no need for Mary or for Joseph to
be celibate.
>
> ***ual intercourse between married people is not sinful despite the
opinions of
> repressed and psychologically-warped people to the contrary, but is
GOD's designated
> method by which His command of "Be fruitful and multiply" given by GOD
at creation is
> being fulfilled.
>
> Surely you don't think that your parents sinned or acted immorally or
promiscuously
> when they enjoyed loving GOD-designed ***ual intercourse with each
other and
> succeeded in conceiving you ?
>
> The Bible tells us that Mary and Joseph had ***ual intercourse with
each other after
> the birth of Jesus, just as husbands and wives have been doing ever
since Adam and
> Eve. There's nothing immoral or unusual in this.
>
> It's likely that the fable of Mary's imaginary "perpetual virginity"
was the
> invention of people with latent or actual homo***ual tendencies.
> Try to get used to the Biblical Fact that Hetero***uality is GOD's
specific approved
> design for humanity.
>
> Johann :
> >Luther maintains the ancient moniker of "Muttergottes" (Theotokos).
>
> Which proves that Luther was not infallible since the term "mother of
god" is absurd,
> since GOD is eternal and uncreated and thus cannot be "mothered".
> Mary was the mother of Jesus of Nazareth in h\His humanity,but not in
His eternal
> uncreated Deity.
>
> Johann :
> >One of the early E***enical Councils anathematized all who denied the
eternal
> >virginity of the Blessed Mother,
>
> Why should we care what these so-called "e***enical councils" say or
don't say ?
>
> "e***enical councils" have no authority in the sight of GOD.
> They're merely play-actors playing their "power-games".
>
> The so-called "council of Trent" anathematised the Biblical Truth of
Justification by
> Faith, which thus lays a curse upon Christ's apostle Paul, and a curse
upon Abraham,
> and a curse upon all of GOD's people, and and a curse upon Jesus
Christ, and and a
> curse upon GOD's Scriptures, and also a curse upon GOD Who teaches
Justification by
> Faith in His inspired infallible Scriptures.
>
> This proves that "councils" whether "e***enical" or otherwise, need not
and must not
> be taken seriously.
> What MUST always be taken seriously are GOD's inspired infallible
Scriptures.
>
> Johann :
> >and the Fathers of the Church have warned us that denigration of the
Virgin is none >other than rebuke and blasphemy of the Lord Himself.
>
> Mary was a virgin in physical terms only until the birth of Jesus when
her hymeneal
> membrane was irreversibly ruptured.
>
> In Principle, Mary ceased to be a virgin from the moment of her
miraculous
> impregnation by the Spirit of GOD.
>
> In terms of practical marital ***uality, Mary ceased to be a virgin
from the moment
> thather husband Joseph's erect male reproductive organ [ "*****" ]
penetrated Mary's
> vaginal and uterine cavities during Mary and Joseph's first act of
***ual intercourse
> together, which we are told in GOD's Scriptures, occurred after the
birth of the
> first of Mary's several children.
>
> Since there is not a shred of Biblical evidence or proof for the
pretentious fables
> of Mary's imagined "perpetual virginity", nor for a mythical
"immaculate conception"
> nor for an imagined "assumption", these man-made old wives' tales can
be ignored as
> superfluous, irrelevant and of no significance whatsoever.
>
> Johann :
> >Blessings at Pascha
>
> And may all of your hot cross buns have plenty of sultanas.
>
> Citation from the writings of Orthodox Saint Michael :
> >"For myself, I firmly believe all of GOD's inspired Scriptures because
of the absolute >Authority and the infinite Trustworthiness of GOD, Who
is the sovereign Divine Author >and Inspirer and thus the Owner of His
infallible Scriptures."
> >- Saint Michael Townsend, Believer in Christ Jesus by the Grace of GOD
!
>
> Michael Townsend
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: For David Grimes---
Date: 2000/04/26
Message-ID: <39070F18.1C8013A@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Deja-AN: 615944815
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <tknrfsgpararqsitgdj448m6di2ne599rm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956763828 207.224.254.68 (Wed, 26 Apr 2000
10:43:48 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 10:43:48 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
"Ann Athema ---------- ©®" wrote:
> I see no reason why my reply to you should not be posted.
>
> At 02:38 00-04-19 -0400, you wrote:
> >Dear Ann A:
> > I am a Catholic and would like to correct a few things you wrote
in
> >your e-mail! Catholics kneel in front of statues and we do pray to
Mary
> >asking her to pray for us.
Ah Hah! You admit it! If you pray to Mary, you are saying you consider
her deity. See the passage in which the Angel Gabriel came to her and
announced that she would give birth to the Son of God. She acknowledged
the
announcement, and she called God her Savior! If she were without sin, she
wouldn't need a savior!
> I have seen many Protestants kneel in front of
> >their bible and pray...is that right???
While I have never seen a non-Catholic kneel in front of their Bible, it
would not be wrong. I see no commandment in the Bible that prohibits
Christians from praying near a Bible. But I do see a commandment in the
10 that
forbids Christians from having graven images (statues) of man, angel, or
beast. And I have never yet been to a Roman Catholic place of wor****p (I
won't call Catholic places of wor****p "churches") that didn't contain
several
statues (idols).
>
> Wrong.
> Anyone who DOES kneel in front of a Bible to pray is a false
> Christian, and is using the Bible as an idol.
Where do you get that? Not from the Bible! If so, please quote the verse.
Are you such a fool/so blind that you can't tell the differnce between
God's Word and a statue/Bible?
You are truly stupid, sir!
>
> We believe in intercessory prayer
> >as you do. Mary is the greatest intercessor and yes we ask her to
pray for us.
Please show me the verse that says we are to pray for Mary. The Bible
says there is one intercessor/mediator, Jesus Christ. So why are you
praying to anyone other than Jesus Christ? That is pagan, making Mary a
deity.
>
> Well, you should not be.
> NOWHERE does our Lord Jesus Christ approve, recommend or condone ANY
> prayer TO her.
> You are merely saying that Mary is an actual co-redemptrix, by
> claiming she in an intercessor. Jesus needs no intercessor, for JESUS
> IS the SOLE INTERCESSOR. He does not need help from anyone to
> intercede for Him on the behalf of anyone, for HE intercedes on our
> behalf to God, the Father.
>
> She is not dead, as some have written to me in the past. Look >in
> Revelation 12 and you will see her along with the Saints.
> No, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but she IS dead.
> She is as dead as any other human beings who have passed on, and their
> souls wing heavenward.. Her body still awaits the final resurrection,
> as do ALL Christian "saints" -- a term more correctly used to denote
> those who have died IN CHRIST.
Actually, the term "saint" does not refer to "those who have died in
Christ." This is an error some have fallen into in response to the RCC
pagan practice of "cannonizing" some who have died.
If you re-check the opening verses of each epistle, I believe you will
find that they are all addressed Acts calls them/us saints, 2 Corinthians
calls us saints, Ephesians calls us saints, and clarifies the word to
mean,
"believers" or "the faithful", Philippians calls us "saints", and I'll
stop there.
>
>
> >We honor Mary and the Saints and that takes nothing away from our love
and adoration of Christ.
We are all saints, so you should pray to me, then.
> There is a difference between *Adoration* (Christ alone) and
*veneration*(The Blessed Mother)
Please quote the verse that makes this distinction. Again, you quote the
RCC pagan religion, not the Bible. And I see nowhere that the Bible calls
Mary "the Blessed Mother", which again, is part of Maryiolatry.
>
> No, there isn't. The way that you revere her, and pray to her, plead
> to her, kneel before statues of her, etc-- this is idolatry.
> God forbids idolatry.
> You are praying to her, when you should be praying to God THROUGH
> JESUS CHRIST --- not Mary.
>
> > I take offense to you calling the Catholic faith a cult.
> Sorry if you do, but it bears ALL the typical earmarks of a cult.
> Until it can prove itself otherwise, I'm leaving it in the cult
> category.
>
Well, the above person may apologize to you for calling RCC paganism a
cult. I will call it pagan, and a cult, and I will not offer any apology.
>
> >I will not
> >stoop as low as that and call you *darling* or *dizzy broad* so >
please show my faith respect!!!
We will respect the person who is worth of such respect. You, who knew
the truth of non-Catholicism and left it for the paganism of Rome are not
worthy of any such respect. And your pagan religion isn't either.
>
> I can respect the person, yes-- but that's as far as it goes. I have
> no respect for a pagan following, no respect for idolatry, and
> certainly no respect for false teaching.
> I've been trying to keep from saying too much on this because I have a
> couple of relatives who joined it, but-- I will not stand by and allow
> Catholics to walk all over me either.
Good for you! Amen! Don't expect to get through to David. He is a true
pagan. But don't let him think he's right, either. Being RCC doesn't make
you automatically correct.
>
> Certain ones have been railing on to me about 'wrong', 'false', and
> 'unsaved' we supposedly are, I decided not to tolerate any more of it.
> As for the 'dearie' bit--- that's only mild-- one of your faith called
> me a 'fat, faithless old cow' because I don't swallow the teachings of
> the RCC. How's THAT for respecting MY faith then?
>
> > Prove your statement that indulgences are once again being
sold!!!
> >Where??? How did you obtain this information???
> I already gave the URL for checking it. I refuse to continue to repeat
> myself for the purposes of argument.
>
> > As for Grace alone being the means to salvation Catholic couldn't
agree
> >more. The Church has always taught that one is saved by Grace alone.
From
> >Grace comes faith and from that works.
Except you *do* continue to preach that the only church that can offer
salvation is the RCC pagan religion.
>
> Your church teaches a WORKS-BASED philosophy on salvation. That is
> wrong. We are not saved by works---
>
> James 2:24 is very clear as are
> >other passages I would share with you if you want.
> No thanks, I do know the Bible thank you. I also know that James 2:24
> is always being misread by you.
> That, too has been discussed previously, and I'll be darned if I'll
> waste more time reha****ng that either.
>
> On this we agree! We only 'agreed' on the salvation by grace through
> faith in Christ --- NOT in your works philosophy. The works are
> something we will willingly perform AS A RESULT of knowing our
> inclusion with Christ, of knowing our salvation is assured----- we do
> not perform works in order to BE saved...
>
Again, you don't preach salavtion by faith. You preach salvation by
believing in the RCC.
>
> >It is a blatant lie to accuse us of claiming works alone get one to
heaven...that
> >is not true!!! The Church doesn't teach that!!
> ---'Coulda fooled me-- a lot of us, in fact--- I've seen that claim
> far too many times.
Yep.
>
>
> > I take no offense to your statements about authority. Let me
give you some bible verses to substantiate our doctrine of infallibility.
And why do you continue to capitalize "Church", yet you continue to use a
small letter for "bible"? That, too is heresy. You put the church above
the Bible in authority, you pagan!
>
> Excuse me-- your 'infallibility doctrine' is NOT substantiated, and no
> matter how many of the Catholic version of Bible verses you hand me,
> that will still not make me believe that.
>
> >First, our priests are just as infallible as you or I.
> You are saying 'infallible' ---- I trust you mean FALLIBLE --- no
> person,. whether ordinary Joe-blow, doctor, nurse, cobbler, tinker,
> teacher, Indian Chief, baker, candlestick-maker, priest or pope is
> 'infallible'.
You consider your pope infallible. Isn't he a priest? What you believe is
that once he has been a RCC long enough, he eventually studies enough and
does enough good works to become infallible. You deify him! What a crock!
By the way, what's a good pagan Roman Catholic like you doing in a non-
Catholic news group like Christian Baptist? Just curious why you waste
your time when you could be out dragging innocent children in to
proselytize?
>
>
> The bible is very clear in
> >Matthew 16:19....."I will give you the keys to the kingdom of >
heaven.Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; >and whatever
you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Those are the words of
Christ, Ann
> >A!!!
> Yes, yes, I know-- like I said, I know my Bible, thank you.
> But as usual for your group, you are misreading it.
Yep. He spoke them to the apostles, not just to Peter. He didn't take
Peter aside and say this. He was talking to the apostles, and He asked
them several questions. You have to read the context here. One of the
apostles,
when asked, "Who do men say that I am?" answered "one of the prophets."
When Peter was asked, he said, "You are the Christ..." Jesus' remark,
which RCC pagans love to quote, meant that the church would be founded on
the
belief/understanding that Christ is God in flesh.
For proof of that interpretation, see Paul's quote that Christ Himself is
the cornerstone of His church, not Peter, not Paul, and not Mary. By the
way, why you wor****p Mary when she like any woman had other kids after
Jesus
is beyond me. Oh, that's right! You believe God stole Joseph's wife! You
believe that God committed spiritual adultery!
>
>
> If Peter and successive Popes bound something here on earth we have
> >Christ's promise that it would be bound in heaven.
> No--- Peter was not the first 'pope' and even if he had been, 'poe' is
> a merely man-made false title.
Please show us the title "pope" in the Bible.
>
> The first pope, according to history, was Cirrissius -- this was ALSO
> posted before, several weeks ago. Did you not read that either? As
> well, nowhere in the Bible is the term 'pope' mentioned, let alone
> even condoned or endorsed.
>
> >Now, I know all the Baptist arguments
> ---how singularly exciting for you---
>
> but they don't equal the words of Christ himself.
> Neither does the false teaching of the RCC. It leads AWAY from
> Christ-- not TO Him.
>
> >I take Christ at his word...don't you???
> Yes, indeed I DO take Christ at His word. That's why I so strongly
> fight against false teaching.
>
> >Christ again makes it very clear in
> >Matthew 18:18 so please read it carefully.
> Do not propose to instruct me as to HOW to read the Bible. I've read
> it in its entirety several times over, and continue to re-reead it on
> a daily basis, discerning from it as the Lord leads.
>
> When the Popes have used the
> >authority to bind and loose it came from Christ.
> No, you're mistaken. Christ did not even MENTION popes. Your pope is a
> man-mad false authority. He is not Christ's equal on earth. They are
> teaching you falsely that he is.
Jesus was talking to 12 apostles when He spoke those words, not just to
Peter. Matthew 16:18
Again, explain Ephesians 2:20. Where Paul says Jesus Himself is the
cornerstone, not Peter!
>
>
> > To address your statement concerning Pastors. Pastors, of >
course have no authority, because they are not in communion with Christ's
Church....the Catholic Church.
>
Yawn!
>
> Your stupid comment above does not even WARRANT any further
> discussion. You are lying. You've obviously been so fed with the RCC
> false teachings that you actually believe your pope has supernatural
> authority. I pity you.
> I pray that soon, before it is too late, your eyes will be opened.
> You claim that your 'popes' (with their horrendous bloodthirsty
> history of deceit, lies, greed, torture, imprisonment, murder, etc---
> to get ole ones out of the way to make room for the new) have special
> authority from Christ, which an outright LIE.
> You claim that our Pastors have 'no authority because they are not in
> communion with your church' -- that, too is a boldfaced LIE.
Actually, David is not the liar. David is the brainwashed. His sin was/is
allowing the brainwa****ng when the Bible itself is so clear. We can (as
the RCC pagan hierarchy do) explain scripture away, or we can read it and
accept it in black and white. David isn't capable anymore of
reading/understanding for himself. The demons which permeate the RCC
pagan religion are powerful demons indeed.
>
> We have nothing in communion with your 'church' because your religion
> is just that -- 'religion' -- a set of manmade rules... it's not
> Christianity in its doctrines and practices.
> As well, we NEVER would be so bold as to make false claims about
> imaginary 'authority' like you do.
>
> Your church wasn't even in existence until the 16th
> >century
>
Funny! I see 7 churches before the Bible was even finished. So how does
David claim that there was no church before the 3rd century? He is
absurd, as are most Roman Catholics. I have known a few/precious few
Roman Catholics
who became born again, according to John 3. But most excuse their
disobedience by calling themselves Roman Catholic. Let David explain his
open defiance of Scripture when he sees Jesus face to face.
We pray for you, David, that the God of the Bible (Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit) will reveal Himself to you in truth before it's too late.
In Christ,
john
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Friends are God's way of taking care of us."
> Please help sup****t the hungry: go to
> http://www.thehungersite.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: For David Grimes---
Date: 2000/04/26
Message-ID: <39071014.6F5FAB98@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 615946276
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <tknrfsgpararqsitgdj448m6di2ne599rm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <APlL4.23563
$fV.1273511@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956764075 207.224.254.68 (Wed, 26 Apr 2000
10:47:55 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 10:47:55 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
kneeling in prayer itself doesn't constitute praying to an idol; it's
praying
to an idol when you are kneeling in front of an idol (statue of a
person/beast), which was the point of the remark.
Orthodox wrote:
> Ann Athema ---------- ©® <persniff...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote
> in message news:tknrfsgpararqsitgdj448m6di2ne599rm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I see no reason why my reply to you should not be posted.
> >
> > At 02:38 00-04-19 -0400, you wrote:
> > >Dear Ann A:
> > > I am a Catholic and would like to correct a few things you
wrote in
> > >your e-mail! Catholics kneel in front of statues and we do pray to
Mary
> > >asking her to pray for us. I have seen many Protestants kneel in
front
> of
> > >their bible and pray...is that right???
> > Wrong.
> > Anyone who DOES kneel in front of a Bible to pray is a false
> > Christian, and is using the Bible as an idol.
>
> What is it with you Protestants? Since when does kneeling in prayer
> constitute "praying to an idol" ??? Your claims just keep getting
weirder
> and weirder, as you continue to spout your man-made "Reformation"
dogma.
>
> Orthodox
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: David Grimes, A Roman Catholic and Heretic
Date: 2000/04/26
Message-ID: <39078EC6.346ABCE0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 616145924
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <390707AE.5733ADF5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sge2jmoeqgc88
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956796513 63.225.167.220 (Wed, 26 Apr 2000
19:48:33 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:48:33 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
Juggernaut, your reponse to my question that I posed to David, "Are you
born
again?" re: John 3:3, "All baptized Catholics are born again," is once
again,
absurd, heretical, pagan, and anti-scriptural to anyone who has read the
entire Bible. Look at John 3:16. Infants who are baptized within a week
or two
of their birth can't "believe" as Jesus said was required in John 3:16.
You RC
pagans call Baptists heretics and lunatics, yet we shove John 3:16 under
your
noses, and you are left with egg on your faces. John 3:16 says clearly
that
"...whosoever believes on Him (Christ) shall not perish, but shall have
eternal life."
Baptizing infants doesn't count as "being born again", since Jesus
specified
that we must "believe". I know/have known too many Roman Catholics in my
52
years who were little demons, and yet they insisted that they were
totally
okay, in spite of the fact that they didn't believe in God or Jesus, and
never
went to church. Why were they "okay"? They were okay, they explained,
because
they had been "baptized" (acccoring to what their RCC pagan parents had
told
them) just after they were born. I must ask, how can a Roman Catholic who
doesn't even believe in God, or remotely attempt to practice the
commandments
found in the New Testament, be "born from above". The Roman Catholic has
nothing to say about being "baptized" when he/she is an infant.
This is one of the many anti-scriptural, pagan heresies we call Roman
Catholicism.
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:390707AE.5733ADF5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > David!
> >
> > You claim to have a corner on the Bible and truth.
> > But you never answered my question which I put to you in e-mail,
> > Are you born again?
> > Jesus Himself said that we must be born again to enter God's Kingdom.
> >
> > "No one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again."
> > John 3:3
> >
> > Are you born again? I'd love to read your explanation of why Roman
> > Catholics are not required to be born again. Everyone else is.
>
> All baptised Catholics are born again (or "born from above" as the text
is
> also translated). This happens as is explained in John 3:5, that we
are
> born again by water and the Spirit, which is baptism.
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: David Grimes, A Roman Catholic and Heretic
Date: 2000/04/26
Message-ID: <39079856.93BEAB60@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Deja-AN: 616156711
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <390707AE.5733ADF5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <omFN4.864$d73.14523
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956798963 63.225.167.220 (Wed, 26 Apr 2000
20:29:23 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:29:23 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
Wor****ping Mary as the Blessed Virgin, and Mother of God is also pagan.
Mary is
not God. Mary needed a savior just like you and me. And why do you insist
that
she is/was a virgin her entire life when the Bible also clearly says that
1. she
and Joseph were married, 2. they had *** after Jesus was born, 3. she had
other
children after she gave birth to Jesus.
Would your religion have God commit adultery? If Mary was promised to
Joseph in
marriage (marriage includes ***), but after she gave birth to Jesus, she
and
Joseph didn't ever have ***, then God stole Joseph's wife! That is
adultery,
punishable in their culture by stoning God to death. heresy you say? No
more
heretical than the RCC pagan religion saying that she was a virgin until
she
died, and then eleveting her to deity. And please point out in the Bible
where
it says that Mary was born of a virgin? The pagan dogma of the
"Immaculate
Conception" states that Mary was also born of a virgin. Where does the
Bible say
that?
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Achirami wrote:
> John Weatherly wrote in message <390707AE.5733A...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
> >David!
> >
> >You claim to have a corner on the Bible and truth.
> >But you never answered my question which I put to you in e-mail,
> >Are you born again?
> >Jesus Himself said that we must be born again to enter God's Kingdom.
> >
> >"No one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again."
> >John 3:3
> >
> >Are you born again? I'd love to read your explanation of why Roman
> >Catholics are not required to be born again. Everyone else is.
>
> No one pretends to have a corner on the Bible. You can have the four of
> them. There is no truth in you, just wind and it smells.
> Because Catholics and Orthodox are born again since Baptism at an early
age,
that defies Jesus' own words, in John 3:16, that "whosoever believes in
Him
shall have eternal life."
>
> only those who get lost on their way need be born again.
Again, Jesus said in John 3:3 that no one can get into the Kingdom w/o
being
born again. You re-write and ignore scripture at every turn.
> Probably your case.
> And then they become fanatics, just like you. Your holy sprout can only
be
> psychosis automation.
So adhering to the Bible rather than RCC pagan dogma is psychosis? If
that's
true, then thank you!
>
>
> >
> >And you justify Catholics kneeling before statues by the flimsy excuse
> >"Well, Protestants kneel before their Bibles and pray. Isn't that
> >wor****pping idols?"
>
What does your family experience have to do with Divine Revelation? You
have
chagned the subject, and you are soo spiritually blind/numb that you
don't even
realize it!
>
> When i was very young, my mother was my idol. When she died, i adopted
the
> Holy Virgin Mary, Christ Jesus' Mother. Then it got confused. When i
was
> speaking to Mary, asking Mary to pray for me, in my mind, She looked
exactly
> like my own mother. My mother's name was also Mary.
>
> Catholics and Orthodox do ask Mary to pray for them, they don't wor****p
The
> Mother of God, they venerate Her because She was the Mother of Christ
Jesus
> Who was the son of our Mother the Church, our Brother.
Prayer is an act of wor****p. The Bible states very clearly that only God
has the
power to answer prayer.
>
>
> My three year old grand daughter loves me as if i was her idol. I don't
> mind, because she is also my idol. My wife is another of my idols and i
have
> as many idols as i have children, in-laws and grand children. One
hockey
> player is my idol. Don Drysdale, (the Chief), a right handed baseball
> pitcher was another of my idols.
>
Again, you are mixing apples and oranges. I was discussing Idols in
church. You
are now talking about baseball.
|
