Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.basic.visual.misc > #1264 > unrolled thread

Re: JESUS IS LORD!

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.basic.visual.misc

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee.earley@icode.co.uk> - 2012-07-10 09:28 +0100
    Re: JESUS IS LORD! ReverendFuzzy <google@msbministries.org> - 2012-07-10 05:31 -0700
      Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee.earley@icode.co.uk> - 2012-07-10 14:26 +0100
        [WAY OT....] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk> - 2012-07-10 18:05 +0100
      Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-10 09:44 -0400
        Re: JESUS IS LORD! ReverendFuzzy <google@msbministries.org> - 2012-07-10 07:58 -0700
      Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Coder X" <coder@x.com> - 2012-07-10 15:18 -0400
        Re: JESUS IS LORD! ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-10 14:36 -0500
          Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-11 10:01 +0100
            Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-11 09:05 -0400
              Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-11 15:15 +0100
            Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-11 13:48 -0300
              Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-12 09:28 +0100
                Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-12 14:08 -0300
                  Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Coder X" <coder@x.com> - 2012-07-12 18:29 -0400
                  Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-17 09:53 +0100

#1264 — Re: JESUS IS LORD!

On 09/07/2012 17:53, Godof Glory wrote:
> JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the
> dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Was this before or after Gandalf was around?

> (cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS 10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)

Ahh, it was earlier in the series of fictional books.

-- 
Deanna Earley (dee.earley@icode.co.uk)
i-Catcher Development Team
http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/

iCode Systems

(Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the 
group.)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1266

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 3:28:41 AM UTC-5, Deanna Earley wrote:
> On 09/07/2012 17:53, Godof Glory wrote:
> > JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the
> > dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
> 
> Was this before or after Gandalf was around?
> 
> > (cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS 10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)
> 
> Ahh, it was earlier in the series of fictional books.

Play nice ... just because you don't believe, doesn't mean it's fiction....
... it just means that you're out of the loop. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1267

On 10/07/2012 13:31, ReverendFuzzy wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 3:28:41 AM UTC-5, Deanna Earley wrote:
>> On 09/07/2012 17:53, Godof Glory wrote:
>> > JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the
>> > dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
>>
>> Was this before or after Gandalf was around?
>>
>> > (cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS 10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)
>>
>> Ahh, it was earlier in the series of fictional books.
>
> Play nice ... just because you don't believe, doesn't mean it's fiction....

Sorry, I should stand by my own "don't force your views on me".

> ... it just means that you're out of the loop. :)

I'm already way out according to a few of the people I came across at 
the weekend :p
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151065243041628&set=a.10151065240881628.481721.752611627&type=3&theater

-- 
Deanna Earley (dee.earley@icode.co.uk)
i-Catcher Development Team
http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/

iCode Systems

(Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the 
group.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1277 — [WAY OT....] Re: JESUS IS LORD!

On 10/07/2012 14:26, Deanna Earley wrote:
> On 10/07/2012 13:31, ReverendFuzzy wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 3:28:41 AM UTC-5, Deanna Earley wrote:
>>> On 09/07/2012 17:53, Godof Glory wrote:
>>> > JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM
>>> from the
>>> > dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
>>>
>>> Was this before or after Gandalf was around?
>>>
>>> > (cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS 10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)
>>>
>>> Ahh, it was earlier in the series of fictional books.
>>
>> Play nice ... just because you don't believe, doesn't mean it's
>> fiction....

Out of interest, do you believe it is all factual?

> Sorry, I should stand by my own "don't force your views on me".

I (and my "minority") are on the receiving end of a barrage of so called 
"Christian" abuse for being "born this way", and I'm a tad jaded.

However, I know this is only a section of the group that (incorrectly) 
call themselves Christians, and there are many more true Christians out 
there, but they need to speak up more to drown out the bigots :)

I assume you're one of the latter in which case, I meant no offence, and 
please accept my apologies.

-- 
Deanna Earley (dee@earlsoft.co.uk)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1268

| Play nice ... just because you don't believe, doesn't mean it's 
fiction....
| ... it just means that you're out of the loop. :)
|

  You want to establish edicate for OT posts that
ignore the OT OP, who is, in turn, clearly in their own
world? That's a new one on me. And what's the
edicate, exactly? Opportunistic mockery is fine
but strident disagreement is wrong? How very PC. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1270

>   You want to establish edicate for OT posts that
> ignore the OT OP, who is, in turn, clearly in their own
> world? That's a new one on me. And what's the
> edicate, exactly? Opportunistic mockery is fine
> but strident disagreement is wrong? How very PC.

You're WAY off base, here.
My note to Deanna was to promote "getting along", not 
to establish etiquette for off-topic posts.

In the future, I suggest you find out the full meaning
of what's being said, and in what context, before you
make accusations.  I could easily have used your method,
and construed your note to be an attempt at a flame war.
Or I could have poked fun at your spelling... but I didn't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1280

"ReverendFuzzy" <google@msbministries.org> wrote in message 
news:76cbb260-5ff6-40c2-9c19-260aab9ce184@googlegroups.com...
> Play nice ... just because you don't believe, doesn't mean it's 
> fiction....
> ... it just means that you're out of the loop. :)

No, it means you're a kook.  Santa still putting presents under your tree? 
Didn't think so. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1281

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:18:37 -0400, "Coder X" <coder@x.com> wrote:

>
>"ReverendFuzzy" <google@msbministries.org> wrote in message 
>news:76cbb260-5ff6-40c2-9c19-260aab9ce184@googlegroups.com...
>> Play nice ... just because you don't believe, doesn't mean it's 
>> fiction....
>> ... it just means that you're out of the loop. :)
>
>No, it means you're a kook.  Santa still putting presents under your tree? 
>Didn't think so. 
>

What? A Santa denier?

Somethings should not be suggested, even in jest.

-ralph

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1290

"ralph" <nt_consulting64@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:ot0pv71j2hs8lsovs25pen8spmfh6fva6u@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:18:37 -0400, "Coder X" <coder@x.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"ReverendFuzzy" <google@msbministries.org> wrote in message
>>news:76cbb260-5ff6-40c2-9c19-260aab9ce184@googlegroups.com...
>>> Play nice ... just because you don't believe, doesn't mean it's
>>> fiction....
>>> ... it just means that you're out of the loop. :)
>>
>>No, it means you're a kook.  Santa still putting presents under your tree?
>>Didn't think so.
>>
>
> What? A Santa denier?
>
> Somethings should not be suggested, even in jest.
>
> -ralph

Quite right! After all the evidence for Santa is quite clear, presents 
delivered, sherry drunk, he even answers entreaties, unlike the evidence for 
any God which is illusionary at best, at the worst it's just fantasy or 
wishful thinking.



What disturbs me most is the staggering arrogance of the Christian ethos, 
they claim the entity that created the whole universe sent his only son here 
to show us the error of our ways. Astonishing that out of the 
200,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy which is one of 200,000,000,000 
galaxies, only our planet and by extension humankind is important enough to 
justify the personal attention of the all-creator.




DaveO

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1292

| What disturbs me most is the staggering arrogance of the Christian ethos,
| they claim the entity that created the whole universe sent his only son 
here
| to show us the error of our ways. Astonishing that out of the
| 200,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy which is one of 200,000,000,000
| galaxies, only our planet and by extension humankind is important enough 
to
| justify the personal attention of the all-creator.
|
   I think it sheds some light if you look at the background.
Jesus was a Jew, working with what was really a primitive,
tribalistic religion. In a sense he usurped his own religion as a
template for a new teaching. (For instance, the
idea of a jealous god makes sense in Judaism. It was a small
tribe living in an area where numerous gods were worshipped.
The Judaic god and Judaic law were all designed to enhance
coherence of and devotion to the tribe. A jealous Christian
god makes no sense. How can a god who created everything
be jealous?)
   So the Bible is somewhat awkwardly combining what are
actually two entirely different religions, with the Old Testament
providing "credentials" for the New Testament. And the early
Christians are not Christians. They're Jews. With a Jewish
sensibility and cosmology.

  But you don't have to throw out the baby with the bath
water. To descibe Christians as arrogant is as absurd in its
sweeping inclusiveness as it is for some evangelicals to
take the Bible in the most simplistic, literal terms. More
intriguing to me is why you're always so vehement on this
topic. It smacks of ... fanatical religiosity. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1294

"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message 
news:jtjtho$c72$1@dont-email.me...

>  To descibe Christians as arrogant is as absurd in its
> sweeping inclusiveness as it is for some evangelicals to
> take the Bible in the most simplistic, literal terms.

So you think it is not arrogant to state that humans were created in the 
image of the creator of the universe and that he favours this planet over 
all others when there must be about 4 x10^22 stars in existence and if only 
1 in a million billion had planets that harboured life that would still 
leave 40 million inhabited planets which all must be lesser than the Earth.



If the assumption that humankind is special and favoured by a god is not 
arrogant, please tell me what is. Strangely if the accounts are to be 
believed Jesus preached humility which is not something I recognize in many 
vocal Christians. Interesting that those who claim to be fervent followers 
of Joshua ben Joseph (What JC would have been called if or when he was 
alive) are the ones who are diametrically opposed to his actual teachings. 
Ever seen a meek evangelist? No me neither but the Sermon on the Mount was 
quite clear about the inheritance planned for the meek.



Geocentricity has been disproven, we are not the focus of the universe, get 
over it!



The literal interpretation of the Bible is obviously wrong but once you 
accept that it's not literally true you have to question everything else 
about the books and once you start to look at them with a critical eye you 
see what a load of admittedly well written but contradictory nonsense they 
are. They are full of myths and stories that were useful to Iron age or 
Bronze age cultures with little scientific knowledge, but now we know that 
on the other side of the sky is just more sky, the ancient myths are no 
longer relevant so why do so many people cling to them?



Religious people often say something along the lines of "if I can save one 
person from eternal damnation then it's all worthwhile", well I think if I 
can save one person from wasting their time in a shared delusion, sorry I 
mean a religion, then it's time well spent.



And yes I've studied the scriptures, firstly when very young I had no 
choice, and later on I guess there was defiantly some "know thy enemy". But 
to debate against religion I have to know at least as much about it as my 
co-disputant. This is why many atheists know more about religion than those 
who claim to follow it.


DaveO 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1295

"DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> escribió en el mensaje 
news:jtjfdc$3j2$1@dont-email.me...

> What disturbs me most is the staggering arrogance of the Christian ethos, 
> they claim the entity that created the whole universe sent his only son 
> here to show us the error of our ways. Astonishing that out of the 
> 200,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy which is one of 200,000,000,000 
> galaxies, only our planet and by extension humankind is important enough 
> to justify the personal attention of the all-creator.

It's because the most of the Christians didn't have the possibility like you 
to visit many of these galaxies and see how is the life there. They only 
know the life on Earth and believe that it's important. That's why God sent 
his son to here. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1298

"Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message 
news:jtkant$f3j$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> escribió en el mensaje 
> news:jtjfdc$3j2$1@dont-email.me...
>
>> What disturbs me most is the staggering arrogance of the Christian ethos, 
>> they claim the entity that created the whole universe sent his only son 
>> here to show us the error of our ways. Astonishing that out of the 
>> 200,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy which is one of 200,000,000,000 
>> galaxies, only our planet and by extension humankind is important enough 
>> to justify the personal attention of the all-creator.
>
> It's because the most of the Christians didn't have the possibility like 
> you to visit many of these galaxies and see how is the life there. They 
> only know the life on Earth and believe that it's important. That's why 
> God sent his son to here.

Wow, now that is the arrogance I refer to. Why here and only here? Do you 
mean that any other entity on any other planet in this or any other galaxy 
is denied salvation because that is what it sounds like. It seems that you 
are saying there is no life anywhere except on the Earth when admittedly 
there is little evidence either way (the prevalence of basic organic 
building blocks in space is highly suggestive) but statistically the chance 
of the Earth being the only island of life in a universe sized sea is so 
slight it's not really worth considering.

Also why such obvious and childish facetiousness? Obliquely suggesting that 
I am some kind of nutcase who thinks he can travel between galaxies and 
visit other worlds, such a thinly veiled ad hominem attack does not enhance 
your position by a single iota, much the opposite in fact.

DaveO

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1301

"DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> escribió en el mensaje 
news:jtm1s1$1r6$1@dont-email.me...
>
> "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message 
> news:jtkant$f3j$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>> "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> escribió en el mensaje 
>> news:jtjfdc$3j2$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>>> What disturbs me most is the staggering arrogance of the Christian 
>>> ethos, they claim the entity that created the whole universe sent his 
>>> only son here to show us the error of our ways. Astonishing that out of 
>>> the 200,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy which is one of 200,000,000,000 
>>> galaxies, only our planet and by extension humankind is important enough 
>>> to justify the personal attention of the all-creator.
>>
>> It's because the most of the Christians didn't have the possibility like 
>> you to visit many of these galaxies and see how is the life there. They 
>> only know the life on Earth and believe that it's important. That's why 
>> God sent his son to here.
>
> Wow, now that is the arrogance I refer to. Why here and only here? Do you 
> mean that any other entity on any other planet in this or any other galaxy 
> is denied salvation because that is what it sounds like. It seems that you 
> are saying there is no life anywhere except on the Earth when admittedly 
> there is little evidence either way (the prevalence of basic organic 
> building blocks in space is highly suggestive) but statistically the 
> chance of the Earth being the only island of life in a universe sized sea 
> is so slight it's not really worth considering.
>
> Also why such obvious and childish facetiousness? Obliquely suggesting 
> that I am some kind of nutcase who thinks he can travel between galaxies 
> and visit other worlds, such a thinly veiled ad hominem attack does not 
> enhance your position by a single iota, much the opposite in fact.

OK, you believe in statistics, I trust in more secure information.

Did you discover already how new life can be formed from inorganic matter? 
Because if you don't, then your statistics worth nothing.
Did you make any contact with some civilizations of these (that are a lot) 
that you say there are?

Who's the one fantasizing?

Ok, don't believe the Bible, but at least that's more secure information, it 
doesn't say it's unproven statistics or suppositions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1303

"Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message 
news:jtn0b4$qoq$1@speranza.aioe.org...

> Ok, don't believe the Bible, but at least that's more secure information, 
> it doesn't say it's unproven statistics or suppositions.

Secure information?  LOL!!!  It's fiction that contradicts itself every 
other page.

Green Eggs or Ham doesn't say it's unproven, but that doesn't make it 
gospel, now does it? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1353

"Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message 
news:jtn0b4$qoq$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> escribió en el mensaje 
> news:jtm1s1$1r6$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message 
>> news:jtkant$f3j$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>
>>> "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> escribió en el mensaje 
>>> news:jtjfdc$3j2$1@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>> What disturbs me most is the staggering arrogance of the Christian 
>>>> ethos, they claim the entity that created the whole universe sent his 
>>>> only son here to show us the error of our ways. Astonishing that out of 
>>>> the 200,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy which is one of 
>>>> 200,000,000,000 galaxies, only our planet and by extension humankind is 
>>>> important enough to justify the personal attention of the all-creator.
>>>
>>> It's because the most of the Christians didn't have the possibility like 
>>> you to visit many of these galaxies and see how is the life there. They 
>>> only know the life on Earth and believe that it's important. That's why 
>>> God sent his son to here.
>>
>> Wow, now that is the arrogance I refer to. Why here and only here? Do you 
>> mean that any other entity on any other planet in this or any other 
>> galaxy is denied salvation because that is what it sounds like. It seems 
>> that you are saying there is no life anywhere except on the Earth when 
>> admittedly there is little evidence either way (the prevalence of basic 
>> organic building blocks in space is highly suggestive) but statistically 
>> the chance of the Earth being the only island of life in a universe sized 
>> sea is so slight it's not really worth considering.
>>
>> Also why such obvious and childish facetiousness? Obliquely suggesting 
>> that I am some kind of nutcase who thinks he can travel between galaxies 
>> and visit other worlds, such a thinly veiled ad hominem attack does not 
>> enhance your position by a single iota, much the opposite in fact.
>
> OK, you believe in statistics, I trust in more secure information.
>
> Did you discover already how new life can be formed from inorganic matter?

Not me personally but the theory is quite sound and most experiments concur 
with theory.

> Because if you don't, then your statistics worth nothing.

So without proof the theory is worthless, interesting because there is not a 
scintilla of proof for anything in the Bible, so presumably by your own 
standards you MUST discard the whole book as hearsay.


> Did you make any contact with some civilizations of these (that are a lot) 
> that you say there are?


Are you an infant? Any other civs will be so far away it would take 
thousands or millions of years to exchange a message and due to the vastness 
of space and the fact that until we encounter any alien life we can't know 
how to communicate with them, a bit of a catch 22 but we are listening and 
searching on what seem sto be the most logical wavelengths. The problem with 
SETI is that if others cultures follow a similar path to ours then wide 
radio emissions will only last for a couple of hundred years at most after 
which it's all fibre and line of sight laser or microwave with minimal 
leakage. All making us harder to detect.



> Who's the one fantasizing?

Let's see, I follow peer reviewed data that is open to anybody to question 
and refute, such scepticism is encouraged as the way to make progress and 
has given us such things as relativity and quantum mechanics. You follow a 
scripture that is canon and as such is considered correct, any questioning 
or doubt is frowned upon as heresy and at one time could have got a doubter 
killed. Any faith that is so insecure it felt it had to murder opponents is 
just not worth following.


> Ok, don't believe the Bible, but at least that's more secure information, 
> it doesn't say it's unproven statistics or suppositions.

ROTFLMAO, you should go on the stage, that is perhaps the funniest thing I 
have ever read. "Secure" - Pure comedy gold!!

DaveO.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.basic.visual.misc

csiph-web