Linda Lee wrote:
> On Aug 26, 8:34 am, "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]"
> <hasa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>Linda Lee wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 24, 12:42 pm, "Suzanne" <****l...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>>>news:1187929322.760846.247680@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>>>On Aug 23, 9:20 pm, "Suzanne" <****l...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>messagenews:1187890715.445414.75570@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>>>>>Libertarius napisal(a):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>===>It is definitely not "wrong", just unknown and
>>>>>>>>>>unacceptable to fundamentalist bible wore****pers. -- L.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>===>One should spell "Holy Bible" with captals,
>>>>>>>>but "bible" is just a word.
>>
>>>>>>>>But Christians don't
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>wor****p the Bible, they wor****p the one that
>>>>>>>>>taught us to read and study God's word.
>>
>>>>>>>>===>By accepting the BIG LIE that it is "God's word",
>>>>>>>>you become a "bible wor****per".
>>>>>>>>By declaring it "inerrant", you become a "bible wor****per". -- L.
>>
>>>>>>>Nominal "Bible Wor****pers" perhaps,
>>>>>>>but most of them do not seem to know much about what their Bible
says
>>>>>>>concerning their ideologies.
>>
>>>>>>>as for me i have never stopped enjoying studying this "Bible" -- it
>>>>>>>reveals mountains of information.
>>
>>>>>>>None of it pointing to a 'deity' however.
>>
>>>>>>Since the Bible has a lot to say about God,
>>>>>>why would you say this last statement?
>>
>>>>>>Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>Because he's spiritually blind, Suzanne. Oh, I guess that was a
>>>>>rhetorical question, wasn't it?
>>
>>>>Actually, I offered him a chance to explain
>>>>why he was making two such incongruent
>>>>statements. I can see the possiblities of
>>>>what he may have been intending, if he
>>>>was trying to on purpose be facetious, and
>>>>just pull someone's chain.
>>
>>>>Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>He is continually incongruent. To say he is 'spiritually blind' should
>>>not even bother him given that he rejects (to the point of saying
>>>they're nonexistant) God, the spirit, the afterlife, the possibility
>>>of losing his soul, etc., yet he oddly finds that insulting. This
>>>makes him seem enigmatic, yet such contradiction indicates his beliefs
>>>aren't yet set or fully thought out.
>>
>>regarding 'spirit': why do you have a problem with my rejection of a
>>dualist universe ?
>>
>
>
> If you will recall, I believe that the Scriptures indicate that
> Elohiym (God) created mankind to remedy the fall of the angels and to
> allow them a means to return home - to Elohiym and Heaven.
===>That is the beliefe YOU have invented.
No reality behind it, just your fantasy.
This view
> is the ONLY perspective on Elohiym's *reason* for the creation of this
> world and mankind that makes sense and of course includes that
> dualistic view.
===>Trying to use reason without giving up dumb beliefs makes you only
less reasonable, as your newly created silly fantay illustrates. -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
