Discussion:
The World Of Paulin Christianity Versus The World Of Pharisaic Christianity
(too old to reply)
C***@bigsecret.com
2006-10-09 02:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.

Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
655321
2006-10-09 02:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Sorry... got no horse in that race.

Now, scoot!
--
655321
"Heed the message served with every Republican banquet speech -- that the
private interest precedes the public interest, that money is good for rich
people, bad for poor people -- and who can say that the war in Iraq has proven
to be anything other than the transformation of a godforsaken desert into a
defense contractor's Garden of Eden?" -- Lewis Lapham
OK
2006-10-09 06:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Why does it have to be a versus? Why can not be an inclusive, or an
ecumenical, or an interfaith? Why does it have to be adversarial?
p***@hotmail.com
2006-10-10 06:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Why does it have to be a versus? Why can not be an inclusive, or an
ecumenical, or an interfaith? Why does it have to be adversarial?
Because the adherents of those religions will have it no other way.

-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain

Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
OK
2006-10-10 07:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by OK
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Why does it have to be a versus? Why can not be an inclusive, or an
ecumenical, or an interfaith? Why does it have to be adversarial?
Because the adherents of those religions will have it no other way.
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
What? I am an excommunicate of the Orthodox religion and am inclusive,
ecumenical and interfaith. That is probably why I am an excommunicate.
My bishop thinks I am a heretic.
p***@hotmail.com
2006-10-10 07:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by OK
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Why does it have to be a versus? Why can not be an inclusive, or an
ecumenical, or an interfaith? Why does it have to be adversarial?
Because the adherents of those religions will have it no other way.
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
What? I am an excommunicate of the Orthodox religion and am inclusive,
ecumenical and interfaith. That is probably why I am an excommunicate.
My bishop thinks I am a heretic.
Which should prove my point. Even within your own religious community,
there is harsh debate about what "everyone" should believe. There is no
"freedom of speech" when it comes time to disagree with a priest.
Orthodox, Catholic, Muslim, or Hindi. Now add the complexity of the
different communities attempting to work together. The only places
humanity has been free from religious violence is in humanistic
societies. "Freedom of religion" is a simple phrase that means, "Stop
*killing* each other over that shit."

Comparing relative levels of "freedom" in different religious systems
is like comparing levels of "freedom" in prison systems. There's just
not much difference between them (the religions).

-PF, Atl.
#2015/KoBAAWA!
Stephen Adams
2006-10-10 13:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Brothers and sisters, one need no more reason that THIS to not respond
to or communicate with this person...
Post by OK
What? I am an excommunicate of the Orthodox religion and am inclusive,
ecumenical and interfaith. That is probably why I am an excommunicate.
My bishop thinks I am a heretic.
While I may not agree with many of Vladyka TIKHON's statements online,
his analysis of SWMNBN is exactly right on. Given that she is out of
communion, she should be actively working to be restored, rather than
flaunting her sins before all and revelling in her excommunication.

Please do not feed her demons - she needs to repent, and so long as
people encourage her by responding, she will never repent.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
***@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
OK
2006-10-10 16:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Adams
Brothers and sisters, one need no more reason that THIS to not respond
to or communicate with this person...
Post by OK
What? I am an excommunicate of the Orthodox religion and am inclusive,
ecumenical and interfaith. That is probably why I am an excommunicate.
My bishop thinks I am a heretic.
While I may not agree with many of Vladyka TIKHON's statements online,
his analysis of SWMNBN is exactly right on. Given that she is out of
communion, she should be actively working to be restored, rather than
flaunting her sins before all and revelling in her excommunication.
Please do not feed her demons - she needs to repent, and so long as
people encourage her by responding, she will never repent.
-Stephen
This man is full of bull shit. He is trying to control you all. I have a
name. My name is Olympiada. I am inclusive, and ecumenical and open to
inter-faith dialog. I will not get into an argument with a minor
clergyman in a different jurisdiction over my religion or belief system.
Sub deacon Stephen is not under Bishop Tikhon's omophorion and has no
right at all to comment on my excommunication. It is none of his business.
Olympiada
C***@bigsecret.com
2006-10-10 23:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Why does it have to be a versus? Why can not be an inclusive, or an
ecumenical, or an interfaith? Why does it have to be adversarial?
Because Paul was perceived to be adversarial to the Law of Moses
Read His epistle to the Galatians and Acts 15.
Islam is nothing but a repackaging of Moses Law. Hence speaking of
inclusion
is nothing but naivété.
Just look at the punishment for adulterers in Islam: stoning.
There is no such penalty in the Canon Law, the Law of the
Catholic Church which built too much on Paul.
Besides, the Trinitarian Dogma which is derived from Paul
doxology is for Islam a form of polytheism
Al Klein
2006-10-12 01:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Because Paul was perceived to be adversarial to the Law of Moses
Read His epistle to the Galatians and Acts 15.
"Paul" was whatever was required for the particular audience. You
could call him a demagogue, but liar is easier to type and snake oil
salesman is closer to the truth.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the
one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
-- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
C***@bigsecret.com
2006-10-11 00:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Why does it have to be a versus? Why can not be an inclusive, or an
ecumenical, or an interfaith? Why does it have to be adversarial?
We are talking about the real life, the world which surrounds us.
The Greeco Roman world and the Islamic world which represents
trespectively, Paul Christianity versus his opponents the pharisees.
Now tell me where inclusion would fit?
OK
2006-10-11 00:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Post by OK
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Why does it have to be a versus? Why can not be an inclusive, or an
ecumenical, or an interfaith? Why does it have to be adversarial?
We are talking about the real life, the world which surrounds us.
The Greeco Roman world and the Islamic world which represents
trespectively, Paul Christianity versus his opponents the pharisees.
Now tell me where inclusion would fit?
In the human heart. In my heart. In yours?
Al Klein
2006-10-12 01:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
We are talking about the real life, the world which surrounds us.
Oh, I thought you were talking about religion.
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
The Greeco Roman world and the Islamic world which represents
trespectively, Paul Christianity versus his opponents the pharisees.
How little you know about 1st century Judaism.
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Now tell me where inclusion would fit?
Ask a Sadducee.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and
have always been an atheist."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,
responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein
to convert from atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
Sara Brum
2006-10-09 15:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
c. None of the above.

Now fuck off, you cross-posting troll.
OK
2006-10-09 18:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sara Brum
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
c. None of the above.
Now fuck off, you cross-posting troll.
Are you a matushka?
Sara Brum
2006-10-10 01:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by Sara Brum
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
c. None of the above.
Now fuck off, you cross-posting troll.
Are you a matushka?
Is that a proposal, Batushka?
OK
2006-10-10 05:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sara Brum
Post by OK
Post by Sara Brum
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
c. None of the above.
Now fuck off, you cross-posting troll.
Are you a matushka?
Is that a proposal, Batushka?
No, that is a question. A priest may not remarry if he is a widow, nor
marry if he is celibate. Are you a matushka?
Sara Brum
2006-10-10 06:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by Sara Brum
Post by OK
Post by Sara Brum
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
c. None of the above.
Now fuck off, you cross-posting troll.
Are you a matushka?
Is that a proposal, Batushka?
No, that is a question. A priest may not remarry if he is a widow, nor
marry if he is celibate. Are you a matushka?
Do I appear to you to be a matushka? I'm curious to know what inspired you
to ask the question.
OK
2006-10-10 07:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sara Brum
Post by OK
Post by Sara Brum
Post by OK
Post by Sara Brum
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
c. None of the above.
Now fuck off, you cross-posting troll.
Are you a matushka?
Is that a proposal, Batushka?
No, that is a question. A priest may not remarry if he is a widow, nor
marry if he is celibate. Are you a matushka?
Do I appear to you to be a matushka? I'm curious to know what inspired you
to ask the question.
Stop evading the question. Either answer it or say you don't want to
answer it.
Sara Brum
2006-10-10 07:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by Sara Brum
Post by OK
Post by Sara Brum
Post by OK
Post by Sara Brum
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
c. None of the above.
Now fuck off, you cross-posting troll.
Are you a matushka?
Is that a proposal, Batushka?
No, that is a question. A priest may not remarry if he is a widow, nor
marry if he is celibate. Are you a matushka?
Do I appear to you to be a matushka? I'm curious to know what inspired
you to ask the question.
Stop evading the question. Either answer it or say you don't want to
answer it.
I don't believe it's relevant, but I'll play. No, I am not a matushka.

Now, why did you ask the question?
PerfectlyAble
2006-10-10 07:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Freedom of religion is the freedom from other peoples religion.
Freedom of religious speach is the freedom to contradict other
religions.
Freedom is essentially an atheist principle since no religion,
that has deities, allows you ever to get away from 'it'.
Freedom is areligious! America is a humanist secular state.
But then all states are secular because nobody has ever
found a religious leader that dares to claim himself God,
well not since that Pharoah bloke who started off this whole
mess called mono-theism.
C***@bigsecret.com
2006-10-10 23:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Freedom of religion is the freedom from other peoples religion.
Freedom of religious speach is the freedom to contradict other
religions.
Freedom is essentially an atheist principle since no religion,
that has deities, allows you ever to get away from 'it'.
Freedom is areligious! America is a humanist secular state.
But then all states are secular because nobody has ever
found a religious leader that dares to claim himself God,
well not since that Pharoah bloke who started off this whole
mess called mono-theism.
Nonsense, just nonsense
PerfectlyAble
2006-10-11 03:59:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Freedom of religion is the freedom from other peoples religion.
Freedom of religious speach is the freedom to contradict other
religions.
Freedom is essentially an atheist principle since no religion,
that has deities, allows you ever to get away from 'it'.
Freedom is areligious! America is a humanist secular state.
But then all states are secular because nobody has ever
found a religious leader that dares to claim himself God,
well not since that Pharoah bloke who started off this whole
mess called mono-theism.
Nonsense, just nonsense
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
OK
2006-10-11 04:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Freedom of religion is the freedom from other peoples religion.
Freedom of religious speach is the freedom to contradict other
religions.
Freedom is essentially an atheist principle since no religion,
that has deities, allows you ever to get away from 'it'.
Freedom is areligious! America is a humanist secular state.
But then all states are secular because nobody has ever
found a religious leader that dares to claim himself God,
well not since that Pharoah bloke who started off this whole
mess called mono-theism.
Nonsense, just nonsense
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Troll.
PerfectlyAble
2006-10-11 05:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Freedom of religion is the freedom from other peoples religion.
Freedom of religious speach is the freedom to contradict other
religions.
Freedom is essentially an atheist principle since no religion,
that has deities, allows you ever to get away from 'it'.
Freedom is areligious! America is a humanist secular state.
But then all states are secular because nobody has ever
found a religious leader that dares to claim himself God,
well not since that Pharoah bloke who started off this whole
mess called mono-theism.
Nonsense, just nonsense
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Troll.
No seriously. The Churches has historically fought against
new ideas that free thinkers have thought up. Think about it,
religion is at the centre of society, it naturally gets in the way
of any new paradigm. What is creationism? Absurd but
represents the core values of the America establishment,
so we are told by jerks for Jesus.
OK
2006-10-11 06:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by OK
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Freedom of religion is the freedom from other peoples religion.
Freedom of religious speach is the freedom to contradict other
religions.
Freedom is essentially an atheist principle since no religion,
that has deities, allows you ever to get away from 'it'.
Freedom is areligious! America is a humanist secular state.
But then all states are secular because nobody has ever
found a religious leader that dares to claim himself God,
well not since that Pharoah bloke who started off this whole
mess called mono-theism.
Nonsense, just nonsense
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Troll.
No seriously. The Churches has historically fought against
new ideas that free thinkers have thought up. Think about it,
religion is at the centre of society, it naturally gets in the way
of any new paradigm. What is creationism? Absurd but
represents the core values of the America establishment,
so we are told by jerks for Jesus.
I know I am a free thinker, and thought of as a heretic, and I am an
excommunicate. Then again, look at the woman who just got shot for
speaking out in Russia. These are dangerous times we are living in.
I had to find my way to the center of society before I got religion. I
don't like creationism. I like evolution. I told the group I prefer The
Lord or Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to Jesus. I prefer Lord or
Master, and that is what I will say.
Thank you for listening to me. Some men in my denomination do not, even
my bishop does not listen to me.
PerfectlyAble
2006-10-11 18:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by OK
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Freedom of religion is the freedom from other peoples religion.
Freedom of religious speach is the freedom to contradict other
religions.
Freedom is essentially an atheist principle since no religion,
that has deities, allows you ever to get away from 'it'.
Freedom is areligious! America is a humanist secular state.
But then all states are secular because nobody has ever
found a religious leader that dares to claim himself God,
well not since that Pharoah bloke who started off this whole
mess called mono-theism.
Nonsense, just nonsense
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Troll.
No seriously. The Churches has historically fought against
new ideas that free thinkers have thought up. Think about it,
religion is at the centre of society, it naturally gets in the way
of any new paradigm. What is creationism? Absurd but
represents the core values of the America establishment,
so we are told by jerks for Jesus.
I know I am a free thinker, and thought of as a heretic, and I am an
excommunicate. Then again, look at the woman who just got shot for
speaking out in Russia. These are dangerous times we are living in.
You have nothing to fear, she was a hero, fought to keep the
state on track. What you ever do?
Post by OK
I had to find my way to the center of society before I got religion. I
don't like creationism. I like evolution. I told the group I prefer The
Lord or Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to Jesus. I prefer Lord or
Master, and that is what I will say.
I have no idea what you just said. Blather is typical of your
average jerk for Jesus.
Post by OK
Thank you for listening to me. Some men in my denomination do not, even
my bishop does not listen to me.
There is no God, obviously you need to get over yourself. Only
a bunch of self-righteous arseholes could believe both that just
by knowing something that knew everything they could get round
the know-it-all tag but get listened to intently by little boys even
so!
and the wish I were interesting so lets talk about the number one
freaks from the past, Jesus has my brain. Yeah, you are really
a free thinker NOT!

You have any ideas of your own? Do you actually believe that
following the tried and failed Jesus nonsense will ever get you
diddly-squat! Can I sell you a car that doesn't exist? A bridge
I don't own? A God that doesn't have an ounce of credibility?
Are you so frigging gullible!##
OK
2006-10-11 20:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by OK
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by OK
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Freedom of religion is the freedom from other peoples religion.
Freedom of religious speach is the freedom to contradict other
religions.
Freedom is essentially an atheist principle since no religion,
that has deities, allows you ever to get away from 'it'.
Freedom is areligious! America is a humanist secular state.
But then all states are secular because nobody has ever
found a religious leader that dares to claim himself God,
well not since that Pharoah bloke who started off this whole
mess called mono-theism.
Nonsense, just nonsense
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Troll.
No seriously. The Churches has historically fought against
new ideas that free thinkers have thought up. Think about it,
religion is at the centre of society, it naturally gets in the way
of any new paradigm. What is creationism? Absurd but
represents the core values of the America establishment,
so we are told by jerks for Jesus.
I know I am a free thinker, and thought of as a heretic, and I am an
excommunicate. Then again, look at the woman who just got shot for
speaking out in Russia. These are dangerous times we are living in.
You have nothing to fear, she was a hero, fought to keep the
state on track. What you ever do?
Violated me and my bishop's boundaries.
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by OK
I had to find my way to the center of society before I got religion. I
don't like creationism. I like evolution. I told the group I prefer The
Lord or Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to Jesus. I prefer Lord or
Master, and that is what I will say.
I have no idea what you just said. Blather is typical of your
average jerk for Jesus.
I call my Lord my Lord and Master. I will not use the word Jesus because
of the American Evangelic ugliness that connotates.
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by OK
Thank you for listening to me. Some men in my denomination do not, even
my bishop does not listen to me.
There is no God, obviously you need to get over yourself. Only
a bunch of self-righteous arseholes could believe both that just
by knowing something that knew everything they could get round
the know-it-all tag but get listened to intently by little boys even
so!
What? I believe in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Post by PerfectlyAble
and the wish I were interesting so lets talk about the number one
freaks from the past, Jesus has my brain. Yeah, you are really
a free thinker NOT!
I am a boundary violator.
Post by PerfectlyAble
You have any ideas of your own? Do you actually believe that
following the tried and failed Jesus nonsense will ever get you
diddly-squat! Can I sell you a car that doesn't exist? A bridge
I don't own? A God that doesn't have an ounce of credibility?
Are you so frigging gullible!##
Perhaps I am.
D***@starpower.net
2006-10-12 14:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Why don't you just use His real Name?...Yeshua

OK wrote
I call my Lord my Lord and Master. I will not use the word Jesus
because
of the American Evangelic ugliness that connotates.
OK
2006-10-12 16:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@starpower.net
Why don't you just use His real Name?...Yeshua
I call my Lord my Lord and Master. I will not use the word Jesus because
of the American Evangelic ugliness that connotates.
It looks like we can choose what to call Him, although Orthodox means
right belief. Some call Him Jesus, others call him Lord and Master of my
life, others call Him Yeshua. I choose to imitate Saint Ephraim the
Syrian and call Him Lord and Master of my life. That appeals to me, that
meets my deepest need to submit to the Lord and Master of my life. I
need a Lord and Master of my life and Jesus is it! Thank you for this
most interesting conversation. I hope we can all get along now and lift
each other up and not tear one another down. That is not Christianity.
With Love in Christ,
Olympiada
thomas p.
2006-10-13 10:28:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by D***@starpower.net
Why don't you just use His real Name?...Yeshua
I call my Lord my Lord and Master. I will not use the word Jesus because
of the American Evangelic ugliness that connotates.
It looks like we can choose what to call Him, although Orthodox means
right belief. Some call Him Jesus, others call him Lord and Master of my
life, others call Him Yeshua. I choose to imitate Saint Ephraim the
Syrian and call Him Lord and Master of my life. That appeals to me, that
meets my deepest need to submit to the Lord and Master of my life. I
need a Lord and Master of my life and Jesus is it!
Without irony or distortion that sounds exactly like masochism.
Post by OK
Thank you for this
most interesting conversation. I hope we can all get along now and lift
each other up and not tear one another down. That is not Christianity.
With Love in Christ,
Olympiada
OK
2006-10-13 17:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas p.
Post by OK
Post by D***@starpower.net
Why don't you just use His real Name?...Yeshua
I call my Lord my Lord and Master. I will not use the word Jesus because
of the American Evangelic ugliness that connotates.
It looks like we can choose what to call Him, although Orthodox means
right belief. Some call Him Jesus, others call him Lord and Master of my
life, others call Him Yeshua. I choose to imitate Saint Ephraim the
Syrian and call Him Lord and Master of my life. That appeals to me, that
meets my deepest need to submit to the Lord and Master of my life. I
need a Lord and Master of my life and Jesus is it!
Without irony or distortion that sounds exactly like masochism.
I am no masochist. I am submissive though. And what is called a bottom,
but not all bottoms are masochists. I can't stand images of women in
pain. I don't find that appealing *at all*. Perhaps you might want to
research D/s. I recommend Different Loving by Gloria Brames.
http://www.gloria-brame.com/diflove/index.html

I am also quite ironic in my writing, but I really mean it, I enjoy
calling my Lord, my Lord and Master, in fact, I need to call Him that.
It feels good, it fits, it is appropriate. It felt appropriate for the
writers of prayers as well. Many human beings have a internal need to
submit to a dominant personality, in this case Jesus Christ.
Al Klein
2006-10-13 18:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
I am no masochist. I am submissive though. And what is called a bottom,
but not all bottoms are masochists. I can't stand images of women in
pain. I don't find that appealing *at all*. Perhaps you might want to
research D/s. I recommend Different Loving by Gloria Brames.
http://www.gloria-brame.com/diflove/index.html
A Christian subbie? That's always an interesting combo. Are you a
kajira or just a plain old sub?
Post by OK
Many human beings have a internal need to
submit to a dominant personality
How true. Now if only some of the more vanilla ones understood that
not everyone does.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Speculating on the possible reaction to evidence is no excuse for
failing to produce the evidence."
- Wayne M. Delia+
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
OK
2006-10-13 19:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
I am no masochist. I am submissive though. And what is called a bottom,
but not all bottoms are masochists. I can't stand images of women in
pain. I don't find that appealing *at all*. Perhaps you might want to
research D/s. I recommend Different Loving by Gloria Brames.
http://www.gloria-brame.com/diflove/index.html
A Christian subbie? That's always an interesting combo. Are you a
kajira or just a plain old sub?
Yes, I am a Christian submissive. There are a lot of Yahoo groups on the
subject. Here is one. Let me know if you want more:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BalancingBDSMandChristianity/

I am not sure if I am a kajira or not, I have to read that later. Email
off list if you want. The boys here don't like this sort of talk.
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Many human beings have a internal need to
submit to a dominant personality
How true. Now if only some of the more vanilla ones understood that
not everyone does.
Right. Some human beings have a need to dominate. Are you on of the
later? <eg>
Get ready for the flames.
Al Klein
2006-10-13 22:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
A Christian subbie? That's always an interesting combo. Are you a
kajira or just a plain old sub?
Yes, I am a Christian submissive. There are a lot of Yahoo groups on the
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BalancingBDSMandChristianity/
No need. I've been in the lifestyle for many decades.
Post by OK
I am not sure if I am a kajira or not, I have to read that later. Email
off list if you want. The boys here don't like this sort of talk.
"Here" for me is alt.atheism, so I don't have that worry.
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Many human beings have a internal need to
submit to a dominant personality
How true. Now if only some of the more vanilla ones understood that
not everyone does.
Right. Some human beings have a need to dominate. Are you on of the
later?
Need? No.
Post by OK
Get ready for the flames.
I put my asbestos skin on many years ago.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Speculating on the possible reaction to evidence is no excuse for
failing to produce the evidence."
- Wayne M. Delia+
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
OK
2006-10-14 00:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
A Christian subbie? That's always an interesting combo. Are you a
kajira or just a plain old sub?
Yes, I am a Christian submissive. There are a lot of Yahoo groups on the
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BalancingBDSMandChristianity/
No need. I've been in the lifestyle for many decades.
Really? Tell me all about it. Where do you hang out?
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
I am not sure if I am a kajira or not, I have to read that later. Email
off list if you want. The boys here don't like this sort of talk.
"Here" for me is alt.atheism, so I don't have that worry.
Well I am in alt.religion.Christian.east-orthodox where I get flamed for
my private sexual fantasies that I do not write about. I get along
better with atheist men than religious men. Perhaps I will subscribe to
your group. Want to subscribe to mine?
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Many human beings have a internal need to
submit to a dominant personality
How true. Now if only some of the more vanilla ones understood that
not everyone does.
Right. Some human beings have a need to dominate. Are you on of the
later?
Need? No.
Desire? Do you have a desire to dominate then? Are you a dominant?
Something tells me yes. This conversation is going to get me in trouble.
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Get ready for the flames.
I put my asbestos skin on many years ago.
I am relying on my fiery nature to protect me.
Al Klein
2006-10-14 01:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
A Christian subbie? That's always an interesting combo. Are you a
kajira or just a plain old sub?
Yes, I am a Christian submissive. There are a lot of Yahoo groups on the
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BalancingBDSMandChristianity/
No need. I've been in the lifestyle for many decades.
Really? Tell me all about it. Where do you hang out?
With my ... er ... (now) wife.
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
I am not sure if I am a kajira or not, I have to read that later. Email
off list if you want. The boys here don't like this sort of talk.
"Here" for me is alt.atheism, so I don't have that worry.
Well I am in alt.religion.Christian.east-orthodox where I get flamed for
my private sexual fantasies that I do not write about.
You're not supposed to have sexual fantasies. Or anything to do with
sex, except to reproduce. You're not even supposed to think the word.
Didn't you get the memo?
Post by OK
I get along better with atheist men than religious men.
We don't have to worry about some god disapproving.
Post by OK
Perhaps I will subscribe to your group. Want to subscribe to mine?
Where did you get the idea that I'm a latent masochist? :)
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Right. Some human beings have a need to dominate. Are you on of the
later?
Need? No.
Desire? Do you have a desire to dominate then? Are you a dominant?
There's a difference between having a desire to dominate and being
dominant. Or even *a* dominant.
Post by OK
Something tells me yes.
Good guess.
Post by OK
This conversation is going to get me in trouble.
Not with me.
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Get ready for the flames.
I put my asbestos skin on many years ago.
I am relying on my fiery nature to protect me.
Choose your battles. It doesn't pay to win something with no value.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
OK
2006-10-14 01:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
A Christian subbie? That's always an interesting combo. Are you a
kajira or just a plain old sub?
Yes, I am a Christian submissive. There are a lot of Yahoo groups on the
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BalancingBDSMandChristianity/
No need. I've been in the lifestyle for many decades.
Really? Tell me all about it. Where do you hang out?
With my ... er ... (now) wife.
I meant your community! Here come the flames. Ok, help me out here,
where did you read come on there?
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
I am not sure if I am a kajira or not, I have to read that later. Email
off list if you want. The boys here don't like this sort of talk.
"Here" for me is alt.atheism, so I don't have that worry.
Well I am in alt.religion.Christian.east-orthodox where I get flamed for
my private sexual fantasies that I do not write about.
You're not supposed to have sexual fantasies. Or anything to do with
sex, except to reproduce. You're not even supposed to think the word.
Didn't you get the memo?
Yes I most certainly did, ask the guys in this group about that! They
wrote that memo to me on the Indiana List. Want to visit it?
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
I get along better with atheist men than religious men.
We don't have to worry about some god disapproving.
That's not the problem, they are the problem, the men not the Man.
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Perhaps I will subscribe to your group. Want to subscribe to mine?
Where did you get the idea that I'm a latent masochist? :)
Well you are cross-posting. That's ok, I can't join yours either. How
did this message get cross posted?
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Right. Some human beings have a need to dominate. Are you on of the
later?
Need? No.
Desire? Do you have a desire to dominate then? Are you a dominant?
There's a difference between having a desire to dominate and being
dominant. Or even *a* dominant.
Ok, then break it down for us.
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Something tells me yes.
Good guess.
What are you doing "here" cross posting to a.r.c.e.o.?
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
This conversation is going to get me in trouble.
Not with me.
No, but with the boys in the hood. I am just waiting for the first flame.
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Get ready for the flames.
I put my asbestos skin on many years ago.
I am relying on my fiery nature to protect me.
Choose your battles. It doesn't pay to win something with no value.
Ok. But they are the men of my religion, and they are of value, like it
or not.
Al Klein
2006-10-14 22:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Really? Tell me all about it. Where do you hang out?
With my ... er ... (now) wife.
I meant your community!
Alt.atheism here. Family in r/l. Work. A few select friends who
know that vanilla isn't a flavor of ice cream.
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
I get along better with atheist men than religious men.
We don't have to worry about some god disapproving.
That's not the problem, they are the problem, the men not the Man.
So drop the vanilla out of your life.
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
Perhaps I will subscribe to your group. Want to subscribe to mine?
Where did you get the idea that I'm a latent masochist? :)
Well you are cross-posting. That's ok, I can't join yours either. How
did this message get cross posted?
Dunno, but you could try decoding my email address down at the bottom.
Post by OK
What are you doing "here" cross posting to a.r.c.e.o.?
Someone crossposted to alt.atheism and a.r.c.e-o. I'm reading in
alt.atheism.
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by OK
This conversation is going to get me in trouble.
Not with me.
No, but with the boys in the hood. I am just waiting for the first flame.
I'll send you a fire extinguisher.
Post by OK
Ok. But they are the men of my religion, and they are of value, like it
or not.
If you value them, you accept the problems. When the problems become
greater than the value you seek other pastures.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
Darrell Stec
2006-10-14 02:09:37 UTC
Permalink
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 13 October 2006 1:39 pm
Post by OK
I am also quite ironic in my writing, but I really mean it, I enjoy
calling my Lord, my Lord and Master, in fact, I need to call Him that.
It feels good, it fits, it is appropriate. It felt appropriate for the
writers of prayers as well. Many human beings have a internal need to
submit to a dominant personality, in this case Jesus Christ.
Your Joshua submitted to the state to be crucified. How dominant was
that? You Joshua said to walk another mile if forced to walk one. How
dominant was that? Your Joshua said to turn the other cheek when
struck. How dominant was that?

Your Joshua said that unless one was like a little child, they would not
get into heaven. How dominant was that? Your Joshua, often called
god, SUBMITTED himself for whipping. How dominant was that?

I think you have your roles reversed.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec ***@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
OK
2006-10-14 02:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darrell Stec
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 13 October 2006 1:39 pm
Post by OK
I am also quite ironic in my writing, but I really mean it, I enjoy
calling my Lord, my Lord and Master, in fact, I need to call Him that.
It feels good, it fits, it is appropriate. It felt appropriate for the
writers of prayers as well. Many human beings have a internal need to
submit to a dominant personality, in this case Jesus Christ.
Your Joshua submitted to the state to be crucified. How dominant was
that? You Joshua said to walk another mile if forced to walk one. How
dominant was that? Your Joshua said to turn the other cheek when
struck. How dominant was that?
Your Joshua said that unless one was like a little child, they would not
get into heaven. How dominant was that? Your Joshua, often called
god, SUBMITTED himself for whipping. How dominant was that?
I think you have your roles reversed.
My Lord and Master chose to empty Him self out for my sake. Ever heard
of kenotic love? No? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis
Many of our hierarchs served in the military. Now they serve the church.
They model our Lord and Master for us. We call them our Lord, some of us
do, I find that a bit... challenging.

Don't you know the bottom is in control? Do you know what you are
talking about? I do.

My Lord and Master whipped the CEOs and money changers in the temple
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2786&highlight=whipped

want more?

Are you coming from alt.atheism? Not looking for a Christian submissive
mistress, right? If so, turn around and go right back where you came from!
Darrell Stec
2006-10-14 02:26:46 UTC
Permalink
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 13 October 2006 10:14 pm
Post by OK
My Lord and Master whipped the CEOs and money changers in the temple
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2786&highlight=whipped
NO he didn't. The whole story was pure fabrication. First, under
Jewish Law, the unblemished sacrificial animals could only be bought
with Jewish coin. Those living outside of Jerusalem would have had to
exchange their foreign money. Secondly, according to Josephus, the
Temple guards, though in the employ of Rome were Jewish and Joshua
would have been not only causing a disturbance, he would have been
causing one in the holiest courtyards on earth, and desecrating their
religion. Thirdly Joshua claimed to follow the entire Mosaic Law down
to the iota and so were the money changers. Fourth, the bankers would
have had personal guards as explained by Josephus. He could have been
killed on the spot if he dared touch that money. Fifth, a correct
reading had him "leading" out the sheep and cattle, and not whipping
humans.

But if it makes you feel good, believe any fantasy you wish.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec ***@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
OK
2006-10-14 04:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darrell Stec
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 13 October 2006 10:14 pm
Post by OK
My Lord and Master whipped the CEOs and money changers in the temple
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2786&highlight=whipped
NO he didn't. The whole story was pure fabrication. First, under
Jewish Law, the unblemished sacrificial animals could only be bought
with Jewish coin. Those living outside of Jerusalem would have had to
exchange their foreign money. Secondly, according to Josephus, the
Temple guards, though in the employ of Rome were Jewish and Joshua
would have been not only causing a disturbance, he would have been
causing one in the holiest courtyards on earth, and desecrating their
religion. Thirdly Joshua claimed to follow the entire Mosaic Law down
to the iota and so were the money changers. Fourth, the bankers would
have had personal guards as explained by Josephus. He could have been
killed on the spot if he dared touch that money. Fifth, a correct
reading had him "leading" out the sheep and cattle, and not whipping
humans.
But if it makes you feel good, believe any fantasy you wish.
You can contend with my theology professor. He sent me this:

Here's what R.T. France as to say:

1. The Temple Incident
The temple was not only the heart of Israel’s religious life but also the symbol of its national identity. The rededication and purification of the temple in 164 b.c. after Antiochus Epiphanes had defiled it with the worship and altar of Zeus and the restoration of temple worship were the high points of the Maccabean victory, and were commemorated annually thereafter in the Feast of Dedication in December. The patriotic as well as religious symbolism of the temple was thus enormous, and the magnificence of Herod’s rebuilding matched its symbolic significance.

It is likely that among the many factors leading to Jesus’ death the one which most united all elements of the Jewish people against him was that he was perceived (like another Jesus a generation later; Josephus, War 6.300–305) as an opponent of the temple.?24? This is a theme which will develop through the rest of Mark’s story,?25? reaching its climax in the bystanders’ jibe at Jesus on the cross in 15:29–30, followed by the tearing of the temple curtain in 15:38. This first incident in the temple might seem on the surface to be in favour of the temple rather than against it, protecting it from misuse and restoring it to its intended role as a ‘house of prayer for all nations’. But with hindsight it could be seen (as Mark records the temple authorities as recognising already
in v. 18) as the beginning of an increasingly explicit campaign against what the temple now stood for, the first demonstration of a judgment which must ultimately lead to the total dissolution of the building itself.?26? Mark, by associating Jesus’ action with the cursing of the fig tree, ensures that his readers see it in this wider and more ominous perspective.

Mark records the event as the individual action of Jesus, unlike the involvement of the crowd in the royal procession. His attack on the traders and money changers, who were there in the Court of the Gentiles with the permission of the temple authorities and who provided a convenient and probably essential service to worshippers visiting the temple from outside Jerusalem, was not simply (if it was at all) a protest against exploitation by unscrupulous traders. It extended also to their customers (???? ???????????) and even to anyone who was carrying things through the area. It was a repudiation of the way the temple’s affairs were being conducted (and therefore of those under whose authority this took place), not simply an attempt to correct abuse of the system.?27? What
Antiochus had done by blatant idolatry, the Jewish leaders themselves have allowed to happen under the pressure of commercial interests. Temple worship has lost its true focus, and must again be purified.?28?

As apparently a one-man demonstration it is unlikely to have had any long-term practical effect, and we may well assume that the tables were back in place the next day.?29? But it has marked Jesus out as more than an idealistic teacher. He is a radical reformer, and he has thrown down the gauntlet to the temple authorities in a way they cannot ignore, and to which they will respond in vv. 27–28 by questioning his authority.

The ride into the city has already raised this question. In presenting himself as Jerusalem’s messianic ‘king’, Jesus has in effect already placed himself above the Sanhedrin as the ultimate authority in the holy city. Among the actions expected of the Messiah was the purification of the temple’s worship (Ezk. 37:26–28; Pss. Sol. 17:30–32)?30? and even the replacement of the temple itself (following Ezekiel’s vision of the new eschatological temple, Ezk. 40–48, and drawing on Zc. 6:12–13; cf. Tob. 14:5; Jub. 1:27–29; 1 Enoch 1:28–29).?31? In addition, other OT texts spoke of ‘the Lord’ visiting his temple and purifying its worship (Mal. 3:1–4), and predicted that in the eschatological holiness of Jerusalem ‘There shall no longer be traders in the house of the Lord’ (Zc. 14:21).
None of these texts is directly alluded to in Mark’s wording, but they would be likely to occur to an observer with a reasonable knowledge of the OT and of current messianic expectation. Indeed, it would not be inappropriate to describe Jesus’ action as deliberately re-enacting Zc. 14:21.?32? Following on the royal procession to the city, this action looks like a further deliberate claim to messianic authority.?33? Seen in that light, this was not an attempt at short-term reform of the system but a symbolic declaration of eschatological judgment.?34?
France, R. T.: The Gospel of Mark : A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle : W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002, S. 436

Here are the remarks of CRaig Evans followed by a bibliography on the incident.

I've also included Evan's "comments" in an acctacment.


Recent research in the historical Jesus has by and large come to accept the historicity of the temple demonstration. Sanders (Jesus and Judaism, 61–76, with notes on 363–69) regards the event as of vital importance for comprehending Jesus’ self-understanding and what triggered the events of his passion. Meyer (Aims, 168–70) finds the event “solidly probable.” Theissen (TZ 32 [1976] 146–48) finds Jesus’ attitude toward the temple entirely plausible. Brown (455–60) shows how the temple demonstration coheres with the destruction-rebuilding saying in Mark 14:58 (a point also underscored by Sanders; see also Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 334–35, 418–28). Although interpreting the meaning of the event differently from most, Borg (Conflict, 171–75) and Crossan (Historical
Jesus, 355–60) also accept the historicity of the temple demonstration. Apart from the predictable exception of some members of the North American Jesus Seminar (e.g., Mack, Myth, 292: a “Markan fabrication”; Miller, “Temple Demonstration”), the historicity of the temple demonstration is now widely accepted.

Much of the skepticism expressed by German commentators grows out of a misunderstanding of the nature and extent of Jesus’ actions in the temple precincts. His actions were a demonstration, not a takeover of the temple precincts (as in Brandon’s improbable scenario; cf. Jesus and the Zealots). At the earliest stage of the tradition, which in this instance is surely rooted in the actions and sayings of Jesus himself, the emphasis probably fell as much on the words as on the deeds. Jesus’ allusions to Isaiah and Jeremiah would have been as provocative and offensive in the minds of the ruling priests as the actions themselves (see Comment below). But in the presence of many supportive pilgrims (presumably mostly from Galilee) there was an understandable reluctance to escalate the
situation by taking immediate and public action against Jesus. As Sanders (Jesus and Judaism, 69–70, 75) has plausibly suggested, Jesus’ actions were symbolic and quite limited (cf. Schweizer, 231: Jesus, in a “symbolic way, cleared only a limited area of the temple court”). He could not and did not bring temple traffic to a standstill. Most people in the precincts (whose dimensions were enormous—approximately 450 meters north to south and 300 meters east to west) that day would not have even noticed him. His words and actions would eventually have been passed on to anxious temple authorities.

Support for the historicity of the temple action lies in Josephus and the Gospel of John. According to Josephus (Ant. 18.3.3 §§63–64), Jesus was handed over to Pontius Pilate by “the first men [?????? ??????] among us.” Elsewhere in Josephus these “first men” are ruling priests (Ant. 11.5.3 §§140–41; 18.5.3 §121; cf. Luke 19:47; Acts 25:2; 28:17). Why would Jerusalem’s ruling priests hand over Jesus to the Roman governor? The most probable answer is that he had said and done things within the temple precincts (the ruling priests’ domain of authority) that they found offensive and dangerous. The juridical process depicted in the Gospel of Mark is, moreover, consistent with Josephus’s account of Ananias, the peasant prophet who proclaimed the doom of the city and the temple.
Josephus tells us that this man was seized, beaten, and handed over by the “leading citizens” and “rulers” to the Roman governor (J.W. 6.5.3 §§300–309). More will be said below on this man’s fate.
Support for the historicity of the temple action is also seen in John, whose version appears to be independent of Synoptic sources. I follow Meier’s succinct assessment (Marginal Jew, 2:893). At Passover time, Jesus comes to Jerusalem with his disciples (John 2:13, 17 = Mark 11:1, 15); he enters the temple (John 2:14 = Mark 11:11, 15); he drives out merchants and money-changers (John 2:15 = Mark 11:15); and he rebukes the priestly authorities for turning the temple into a place of business (John 2:16 = Mark 11:17). Scripture citations appear in both the Johannine and Markan accounts (John 2:17 = Mark 11:17). Following the temple demonstration, Jesus is asked about his authority (John 2:18–22 = Mark 11:27–33). In John 2:18, Jesus is asked by “the Jews,” “What sign do You show
us, since You do these things [????? ??????]?” (nkjv). In Mark 11:28 Jesus is asked by scribes, ruling priests, and elders: “By what authority do you do these things [????? ??????]?” and “Who has given to you this authority, so that you may do these things [????? ?????]?” Once stripped of their respective redactional and contextual differences, the accounts in Mark and John are remarkably similar. Independently of one another, they provide a common three-part cluster: (a) Jesus enters the temple precincts and demonstrates against some aspect or aspects of trade; (b) he speaks out against temple polity, appealing to Scripture; and (c) temple authorities challenge Jesus, wanting to know by what right he “does these things.”

The principal reason that Sanders (Jesus and Judaism, 66–67, 364 n. 1) rejects the authenticity of vv 16–17 is that he doubts that Jesus’ demonstration was a prophetic protest against corruption. It is at this point that Sanders’s thesis is vulnerable, for there is ample evidence that Jesus’ contemporaries were critical of the Jewish high priesthood and regarded it as corrupt in various ways. We find such evidence in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, where the high priest is dubbed the “Wicked Priest” (1QpHab 1:13; 8:9; 9:9; 11:4), who has robbed the poor (1QpHab 8:12; 9:5; 10:1; 12:10), has amassed wealth (1QpHab 8:8–12; 9:4–5), and has defiled the “Sanctuary of God” (1QpHab 12:8–9). The Testament of Moses condemns the ruling priests (T. Mos. 7:6–10; tr. J. Priest in OTP):
They consume the goods of the (poor), saying their acts are according to justice, (while in fact they are simply) exterminators, deceitfully seeking to conceal themselves so that they will not be known as completely godless because of their criminal deeds (committed) all the day long, saying, “We shall have feasts, even luxurious winings and dinings. Indeed, we shall behave ourselves as princes.” They, with hand and mind, touch impure things, yet their mouths will speak enormous things, and they will even say, “Do not touch me, lest you pollute me in the position I occupy.”
Whereas the pesher on Habakkuk dates from 100 b.c.e., and so originally targeted Hasmonean priests, the Testament of Moses was probably composed some time around 30 c.e. Other first-century sources criticize the ruling priests and call into question temple polity. Josephus tells of high priestly bribery (Ant. 20.9.4 §213; Life 39 §§195–96) and violence (Ant. 20.8.8 §§179–81; 20.9.2 §207). In 2 Baruch the priests confess in the wake of the temple’s destruction that they have been “false stewards” (2 Bar. 10:18). The scene is fictional, of course, but it expresses the view of the author at the end of the first century. Such an expression could scarcely have impressed readers unless many Jews did in fact view the pre-70 high priesthood as corrupt. Later rabbinic sources are very
critical of the first-century ruling priests (see Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple and Evidence of Corruption,” 531–34).

There is also significant evidence in the dominical tradition to indicate that Jesus was critical of the temple establishment. The parable of the Wicked Vineyard Tenants (Mark 12:1–9) threatens the priestly aristocracy with the loss of their position and power (see commentary on this passage). The abuses of power and privilege described in the parable of the Faithless Servant (Matt 24:45–51 = Luke 12:42–46) probably reflect how the ruling aristocracy was perceived in the minds of Palestinian peasants. Jesus’ pronouncement on the half-shekel temple tax (Matt 17:24–27) may have been a “declaration of independence from the Temple and the attendant political-economic-religious establishment” (Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 282). Jesus’ comment regarding the poor widow
and the others who were contributing to the temple’s coffers (Mark 12:41–44) was probably a lament—not a word of commendation—and an implicit criticism of the economic oppressiveness and inequity of the temple establishment (see commentary on this passage). The condemnation of the “scribes” who “devour widows’ houses” (Mark 12:38–40) is probably in reference to efforts to collect gifts for the temple (see commentary on this passage). In Jesus’ lament for Jerusalem (Matt 23:37–38 = Luke 13:34–35) there are significant parallels to Jeremiah, the prophet who had severely criticized Jerusalem’s first temple (Jer 7:14, 34; 12:7; 22:5; 26:9), whose criticism Jesus may have had in mind when he took action in Jerusalem’s second temple (Jer 7:11 in Mark 11:17). Various other details
during passion week cohere with the criticisms of the priestly aristocracy. The priests demand to know by what authority Jesus acted the way he did (Mark 11:27–33). The ruling priests cannot arrest Jesus immediately because of their fear of the multitude (Mark 12:12). Jesus is arrested by servants of the ruling priests who are armed with clubs (Mark 14:43–50).
In view of such evidence, there really are no compelling grounds for rejecting the authenticity of v 17. This is the kind of critical statement that would account for the antagonism that arose between Jesus and the priestly aristocracy. Moreover, one wonders why early Christians, having been rejected by Israel’s religious establishment, would invent a dominical saying in which the temple, as opposed to the church, is recognized as the place of prayer for Gentiles. The allusion to Isa 56:7 is consistent with Jesus’ restorative hopes for Israel. Chilton, in reference to the conflated paraphrase of Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11, rightly comments that a “mixing of scriptural elements in that manner is characteristic of Jesus, not of those who shaped the tradition after him” (ABD 1:806; on
the historicity of the temple cleansing, see Chilton, Galilean Rabbi, 17–18; id., Temple of Jesus, 91–111; on the authenticity of the reference to the ????, “Gentiles,” see Kato, Völkermission, 91–111; Pesch, 2:198–99).

The setting of the pericope plays a very important role both literarily and historically. For Mark it advances the antagonism between Jesus and his opponents. Criticisms now give way to deadly plotting to eliminate Jesus. It also gives Jesus the moral high ground. His criticism of the religious establishment is principally ethical. Jesus has not attacked the Roman administration (even though it is this authority that puts him to death); he has criticized Israel’s religious leadership. On the historical level it is very probable that Jesus’ action in the temple was the principal element that triggered the events that led to his death. One is reminded of another Jesus, son of Ananias, who some thirty years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth also appealed to Jer 7 in his
pronouncement of woe upon the temple and the city of Jerusalem (Josephus, J.W. 6.5.3 §§300–309). The leading citizens of Jerusalem, by which is meant the temple authorities, took strong exception to this man’s gloomy prophecies. The juridical procedure that involved the son of Ananias closely paralleled that which earlier had overtaken Jesus of Nazareth: Jewish authorities interrogated and beat both men; both men were then handed over to the Roman governor; the Roman governor interrogated and beat both men and then decided whether to release or execute them (for more on Jesus ben Ananias, see Comment on v 17).

Bibliography

Ådna, J. “The Attitude of Jesus to the Temple.” Mishkan 17–18 (1992–93) 65–80. ———. “Jesu Kritik am Tempel: Eine Untersuchung zum Verlauf und Sinn der sogenannten Tempelreinigung Jesu, Markus 11,15–17 und Parallelen.” Diss., University of Oslo, 1993. Anderson, H. “The Old Testament in Mark’s Gospel.” In The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays. FS W. F. Stinespring, ed. J. M. Efird. Durham: Duke UP, 1972. 280–306. Bammel, E. “Die Tempelreinigung bei den Synoptikern und im Johannesevangelium.” In John and the Synoptics. Ed. A. Denaux. BETL 101. Leuven: Peeters; Leuven UP, 1992. 507–13. Barrett, C. K. “The House of Prayer and the Den of Thieves.” In Jesus und Paulus. FS W. G. Kümmel, ed. E. E. Ellis and E. Grässer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. 13–20.
Bauckham, R. J. “Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple.” In Law and Religion. Ed. B. Lindars. Cambridge: Clarke, 1988. 72–89. Becker, J. Jesus of Nazareth. 332–33. Borg, M. J. Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 5. New York; Toronto: Mellen, 1984. 171–75. Brandon, S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1967. 255–57, 330–40. Braun, F.-M. “L’expulsion des vendeurs du Temple (Mt., XXI,12–17,23–27; Mc., XI,15–19,27–33; Lc., XIX,45–XX,8; Jo., II,13–22).” RB 38 (1929) 178–200. Broshi, M. “The Role of the Temple in the Herodian Economy.” JJS 38 (1987) 31–37. Buchanan, G. W. “An Additional Note to ‘Mark 11.15–19: Brigands in the Temple.’” HUCA
31 (1960) 103–5. ———. “Mark 11.15–19: Brigands in the Temple.” HUCA 30 (1959) 169–77. ———. “Symbolic Money-Changers in the Temple?” NTS 37 (1991) 280–90. Burkitt, F. C. “The Cleansing of the Temple.” JTS o.s. 25 (1924) 386–90. Buse, I. “The Cleansing of the Temple in the Synoptics and in John.” ExpTim 70 (1958–59) 22–24. Caldecott, A. “The Significance of the ‘Cleansing of the Temple.’” JTS o.s. 24 (1923) 382–86. Carmichael, J. “Jésus-Christ et le Temple.” Nouvelle revue française 12 (1964) 276–95. Catchpole, D. R. “The ‘Triumphal’ Entry.” In Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. 319–35, esp. 330–34. Chilton, B. D. “Caiaphas.” ABD 1:803–6. ———. Galilean Rabbi. ———. The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within
a Cultural History of Sacrifice. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 1992. ———. “[??] ?????????? ?? ???????? (John 2.15).” In Templum Amicitia. FS E. Bammel, ed. W. Horbury. JSNTSup 48. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. 330–44. Cooke, F. A. “The Cleansing of the Temple.” ExpTim 63 (1951–52) 321–22. Crossan, J. D. Historical Jesus. 355–60. ———. “Redaction and Citation in Mark 11:9–10 and 11:17.” BR 17 (1972) 33–50. Culpepper, R. A. “Mark 11:15–19.” Int 34 (1980) 176–81. Daube, D. Civil Disobedience in Antiquity. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1972. 101–12. Derrett, J. D. M. “The Zeal of Thy House and the Cleansing of the Temple.” DRev 95 (1977) 79–94. Dienemann, M. “Wechsler im Tempel.” In Jüdisches Lexikon. Ed. G. Herlitz and B. Kirschner. 4 vols. Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag,
1927–30. 4.2:1350–52. Doeve, J. W. “Purification du Temple et dessèchement du figuier.” NTS 1 (1954–55) 297–308. Dowda, R. E. “The Cleansing of the Temple in the Synoptic Gospels.” Diss., Duke University, 1972. Edwards, J. R. “Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives.” NovT 31 (1989) 193–216. Eppstein, V. “The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple.” ZNW 55 (1964) 42–58. Evans, C. A. “From ‘House of Prayer’ to ‘Cave of Robbers’: Jesus’ Prophetic Criticism of the Temple Establishment.” In The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Intertextuality. FS J. A. Sanders, ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon. Biblical Interpretation Series 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. 417–42. ———. “Jesus’ Action in the Temple and Evidence of
Corruption in the First-Century Temple.” In SBL 1989 Seminar Papers. Ed. D. J. Lull. SBLSP 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. 522–39. ———. “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?” CBQ 51 (1989) 237–70. ———. “Jesus and the ‘Cave of Robbers’: Toward a Jewish Context for the Temple Action.” BBR 3 (1993) 93–110. Fredriksen, P. From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus. London and New Haven: Yale UP, 1988. 111–14. ———. “Jesus and the Temple, Mark and the War.” In Society of Biblical Literature 1990 Seminar Papers. Ed. D. J. Lull. SBLSP 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. 293–310. Gärtner, B. E. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the
New Testament. SNTSMS 1. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1965. 105–22. Glusman, E. P., Jr. “The Cleansing of the Temple and the Anointing at Bethany: The Order of Events in Mark 11/John 11–12.” In SBL 1979 Seminar Papers. Ed. P. J. Achtemeier. 2 vols. SBLSP 18. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979. 1:113–17. Hahn, F. The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity. London: Lutterworth, 1969. 155–56. Hamilton, N. Q. “Temple Cleansing and Temple Bank.” JBL 83 (1964) 365–72. Harland, P. J. “Robber or Violent Man? A Note on the Word pa?r???.” VT 46 (1996) 530–34. Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. London: Duckworth, 1982. 129–34. Hengel, M. Was Jesus a Revolutionist? FBBS 28. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Hiers, R. H. “Purification of the Temple:
Preparation for the Kingdom of God.” JBL 90 (1971) 82–90. Holladay, W. L. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1–25. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Hollenbach, P. “Liberating Jesus for Social Involvement.” BTB 15 (1985) 151–56. Hooker, M. D. “Traditions about the Temple in the Sayings of Jesus.” BJRL 70 (1988) 7–19. Horsley, R. A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence. 279–84. Jeremias, J. “Zwei Miszellen: 1. Antik-jüdische Münzdeutungen; 2. Zur Geschichtlichkeit der Tempelreinigung.” NTS 23 (1977) 177–80. Kato, Z. Die Völkermission im Markusevangelium. Kim, S. “Die Vollmacht Jesu und der Tempel (Markus 11/12): Der Sinn der ‘Tempelreinigung’ und der geschichtliche und theologische Zusammenhang des Prozesses Jesu.” ANRW 2.26.1. Forthcoming.
Lightfoot, R. H. The Gospel Message of St. Mark. Oxford: Clarendon, 1950. 60–69. Lohmeyer, E. “Die Reinigung des Tempels.” TBl 10 (1941) 257–64. Lohse, E. Die Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens Jesu Christi. 3rd ed. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973. 27–40. Losie, L. A. “The Cleansing of the Temple: A History of a Gospel Tradition in Light of Its Background in the Old Testament and in Early Judaism.” Diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1984. Manson, T. W. “The Cleansing of the Temple.” BJRL 33 (1950–51) 271–82. Massyngberd Ford, J. “Money ‘Bags’ in the Temple (Mk 11,16).” Bib 57 (1976) 249–53. Matera, F. J. “The Trial of Jesus.” Int 45 (1991) 12–14. Matson, M. A. “The Contribution to the Temple Cleansing by the Fourth Gospel.” In Society of Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers. Ed. E.
H. Lovering, Jr. SBLSP 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. 489–506. McNamara, M. Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1983. 185–88. Meier, J. P. Marginal Jew. 2:884–96. Mendner, S. “Die Tempelreinigung.” ZNW 47 (1956) 93–112. Meyer, B. F. The Aims of Jesus. 197–202. Miller, R. J. “The (A)historicity of Jesus’ Temple Demonstration: A Test Case in Methodology.” In Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers. Ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. SBLSP 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. 235–52. Neusner, J. “The Absoluteness of Christianity and the Uniqueness of Judaism.” Int 43 (1989) 18–31. ———. “Money-Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah’s Explanation.” NTS 35 (1989) 287–90. Oakman, D. E. “Cursing Fig Trees and Robbers’ Dens.” Semeia 64 (1993) 253–72.
Pesch, R. “Der Anspruch Jesu.” Orientierung 35 (1971) 53–56. ———. Evangelium der Urgemeinde. 134–37. Plooij, D. “Jesus and the Temple.” ExpTim 42 (1930–31) 36–39. Richardson, P. “Why Turn the Tables? Jesus’ Protest in the Temple Precincts.” In Society of Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers. Ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. SBLSP 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. 507–23. Roloff, J. Kerygma und der irdische Jesus. 90–98. Roth, C. “The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah xiv 21.” NovT 4 (1960) 174–81. Runnalls, D. “The King as Temple Builder: A Messianic Typology.” In Spirit within Structure. FS G. Johnston, ed. E. Furcha. PTMS 3. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1983. 15–38. Sabbe, M. “The Cleansing of the Temple and the Temple Logion.” In Studia Neotestamentica: Collected Essays. BETL
98. Leuven: Peeters; Leuven UP, 1991. 331–54. Saldarini, A. J. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988. 241–76. Salin, E. “Jesus und die Wechsler.” Appendix in A. Ben-David. Jerusalem und Tyros: Ein Beitrag zur palästinensischen Münz- und Wirtschaftgeschichte (126 a.C.–57 p.C.). Kleine Schriften zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1969. 49–55. Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. 61–71, 363–69. ———. “Jesus, Paul and Judaism.” ANRW 2.25.1 (1982) 390–450. Sariola, H. Markus und das Gesetz. 211–35. Schenk, W. Der Passionsbericht. 151–58. Schnellbächer, E. L. “The Temple as Focus of Mark’s Theology.” HBT 5 (1983) 95–112. Seeley, D. “Jesus’ Temple Act.” CBQ 55 (1993) 263–83. Söding, T. “Die
Tempelaktion Jesu: Redaktionskritik–Überlieferungsgeschichte–historische Rückfrage.” TTZ 101 (1992) 36–64. Spiegel, E. “War Jesus gewalttätig? Bemerkungen zur Tempelreinigung.” TGl 75 (1985) 239–47. Stein, R. H. “The Cleansing of the Temple in Mark (11:15–19).” In Gospels and Tradition: Studies on Redaction Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1991. 121–33. Suhl, A. Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate. 142–43. Taylor, V. Formation. 75–76. Theissen, G. “Die Tempelweissagung Jesu.” TZ 32 (1976) 144–58 (ET: “Jesus’ Temple Prophecy: Prophecy in the Tension between Town and Country.” In Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics, and the World of the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. 94–114). Tilly, M. “Kanaanäer, Handler und
der Tempel in Jerusalem.” BN 57 (1991) 30–36. Trautmann, M. Zeichenhafte Handlungen Jesu: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem geschichtlichen Jesus. FB 37. Würzburg: Echter, 1980. 78–131. Trocmé, É. “L’expulsion des marchands du Temple.” NTS 15 (1968) 1–22. ———. “Jésus-Christ et le Temple: Éloge d’un naif.” RHPR 44 (1964) 245–51. Wagner, G. “The Cleansing of the Temple.” In Survey Bulletin. Rüschlikon: Baptist Theological Seminary, 1967. 30–42. Watty, W. W. “Jesus and the Temple: Cleansing or Cursing?” ExpTim 93 (1981–82) 235–39. Winkle, R. E. “The Jeremiah Model for Jesus in the Temple.” AUSS 24 (1986) 155–62.
p***@hotmail.com
2006-10-14 06:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darrell Stec
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 13 October 2006 10:14 pm
Post by OK
My Lord and Master whipped the CEOs and money changers in the temple
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2786&highlight=whipped
NO he didn't. The whole story was pure fabrication. First, under
Jewish Law, the unblemished sacrificial animals could only be bought
with Jewish coin. Those living outside of Jerusalem would have had to
exchange their foreign money. Secondly, according to Josephus, the
Temple guards, though in the employ of Rome were Jewish and Joshua
would have been not only causing a disturbance, he would have been
causing one in the holiest courtyards on earth, and desecrating their
religion. Thirdly Joshua claimed to follow the entire Mosaic Law down
to the iota and so were the money changers. Fourth, the bankers would
have had personal guards as explained by Josephus. He could have been
killed on the spot if he dared touch that money. Fifth, a correct
reading had him "leading" out the sheep and cattle, and not whipping
humans.
But if it makes you feel good, believe any fantasy you wish.
He treats the book of Mark as if it were a reliable historical
resource. It is not.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z53E126FD

-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain

Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
bk
2006-10-15 04:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Darrell Stec
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 13 October 2006 10:14 pm
Post by OK
My Lord and Master whipped the CEOs and money changers in the temple
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2786&highlight=whipped
NO he didn't. The whole story was pure fabrication. First, under
Jewish Law, the unblemished sacrificial animals could only be bought
with Jewish coin. Those living outside of Jerusalem would have had to
exchange their foreign money. Secondly, according to Josephus, the
Temple guards, though in the employ of Rome were Jewish and Joshua
would have been not only causing a disturbance, he would have been
causing one in the holiest courtyards on earth, and desecrating their
religion. Thirdly Joshua claimed to follow the entire Mosaic Law down
to the iota and so were the money changers. Fourth, the bankers would
have had personal guards as explained by Josephus. He could have been
killed on the spot if he dared touch that money. Fifth, a correct
reading had him "leading" out the sheep and cattle, and not whipping
humans.
But if it makes you feel good, believe any fantasy you wish.
He treats the book of Mark as if it were a reliable historical
resource. It is not.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z53E126FD
When was the book of Mark written?
Michael Gray
2006-10-14 02:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Don't you know the bottom is in control?
Yours is certainly in control of your mouth...
OK
2006-10-14 04:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gray
Post by OK
Don't you know the bottom is in control?
Yours is certainly in control of your mouth...
Ah, a flame. And why? Do you know you are posting in a religious group?
And, btw, what do you know about bottoms in a BDSM context? I see
*absolutely nothing*
Michael Gray
2006-10-14 05:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by Michael Gray
Post by OK
Don't you know the bottom is in control?
Yours is certainly in control of your mouth...
Ah, a flame. And why? Do you know you are posting in a religious group?
So?!
Are one of those sanctimonious religous psychotic brain-dead cretins
who still believe that a delusion is immune from attack on the basis
that it arises from an infection by a theistic meme in the brain of
the sufferer?

Do you know that you are cross-posting into alt.atheism?
Post by OK
And, btw, what do you know about bottoms in a BDSM context? I see
*absolutely nothing*
Ask a God-soaked Catholic Priest.
OK
2006-10-14 20:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gray
Post by OK
Post by Michael Gray
Post by OK
Don't you know the bottom is in control?
Yours is certainly in control of your mouth...
Ah, a flame. And why? Do you know you are posting in a religious group?
So?!
Are one of those sanctimonious religous psychotic brain-dead cretins
who still believe that a delusion is immune from attack on the basis
that it arises from an infection by a theistic meme in the brain of
the sufferer?
Do you know that you are cross-posting into alt.atheism?
I am replying to a cross post from alt.atheism. I suggest you ask your
group how it got here. I am going to join your group to lurk and to find
out if you have a charter or a FAQ. My group does not. I would suggest
one, but my group thinks I am a troll and is quite sadistic to me. In a
bad way. In an unpleasant way. I doubt I am sanctimonious. My religious
group does not approve of me. Nor am I brain dead, nor a cretin. What is
a delusion to you? Everything I experience is quite real. My brain has
no infection, it is quite healthy.
Post by Michael Gray
Post by OK
And, btw, what do you know about bottoms in a BDSM context? I see
*absolutely nothing*
Ask a God-soaked Catholic Priest.
I may know a couple to ask. If I could find a sadistic Catholic priest
to top me in a consensual agreement, I would be quite happy. <eg> Some
Catholic priests know how to wield a whip you know.
D***@starpower.net
2006-10-15 08:50:56 UTC
Permalink
You need therapy of some sort it would seem...
Post by OK
I may know a couple to ask. If I could find a sadistic Catholic priest
to top me in a consensual agreement, I would be quite happy. <eg> Some
Catholic priests know how to wield a whip you know.
OK
2006-10-15 21:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@starpower.net
You need therapy of some sort it would seem...
Post by OK
I may know a couple to ask. If I could find a sadistic Catholic priest
to top me in a consensual agreement, I would be quite happy. <eg> Some
Catholic priests know how to wield a whip you know.
I have been in therapy since I was a teenager. I am going to have adopt
my bishop's signature in this newsgroup as well. I apologize.
"It is hard not to write satire" Juvenal
thomas p.
2006-10-16 10:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by thomas p.
Post by OK
Post by D***@starpower.net
Why don't you just use His real Name?...Yeshua
I call my Lord my Lord and Master. I will not use the word Jesus because
of the American Evangelic ugliness that connotates.
It looks like we can choose what to call Him, although Orthodox means
right belief. Some call Him Jesus, others call him Lord and Master of my
life, others call Him Yeshua. I choose to imitate Saint Ephraim the
Syrian and call Him Lord and Master of my life. That appeals to me, that
meets my deepest need to submit to the Lord and Master of my life. I
need a Lord and Master of my life and Jesus is it!
Without irony or distortion that sounds exactly like masochism.
I am no masochist. I am submissive though. And what is called a bottom,
but not all bottoms are masochists. I can't stand images of women in
pain. I don't find that appealing *at all*. Perhaps you might want to
research D/s. I recommend Different Loving by Gloria Brames.
http://www.gloria-brame.com/diflove/index.html
I am also quite ironic in my writing, but I really mean it, I enjoy
calling my Lord, my Lord and Master, in fact, I need to call Him that.
It feels good, it fits, it is appropriate. It felt appropriate for the
writers of prayers as well. Many human beings have a internal need to
submit to a dominant personality, in this case Jesus Christ.
I rest my case.
OK
2006-10-17 23:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas p.
Post by OK
Post by thomas p.
Post by OK
Post by D***@starpower.net
Why don't you just use His real Name?...Yeshua
I call my Lord my Lord and Master. I will not use the word Jesus because
of the American Evangelic ugliness that connotates.
It looks like we can choose what to call Him, although Orthodox means
right belief. Some call Him Jesus, others call him Lord and Master of my
life, others call Him Yeshua. I choose to imitate Saint Ephraim the
Syrian and call Him Lord and Master of my life. That appeals to me, that
meets my deepest need to submit to the Lord and Master of my life. I
need a Lord and Master of my life and Jesus is it!
Without irony or distortion that sounds exactly like masochism.
I am no masochist. I am submissive though. And what is called a bottom,
but not all bottoms are masochists. I can't stand images of women in
pain. I don't find that appealing *at all*. Perhaps you might want to
research D/s. I recommend Different Loving by Gloria Brames.
http://www.gloria-brame.com/diflove/index.html
I am also quite ironic in my writing, but I really mean it, I enjoy
calling my Lord, my Lord and Master, in fact, I need to call Him that.
It feels good, it fits, it is appropriate. It felt appropriate for the
writers of prayers as well. Many human beings have a internal need to
submit to a dominant personality, in this case Jesus Christ.
I rest my case.
Why?
PerfectlyAble
2006-10-12 20:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by OK
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by OK
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Freedom of religion is the freedom from other peoples religion.
Freedom of religious speach is the freedom to contradict other
religions.
Freedom is essentially an atheist principle since no religion,
that has deities, allows you ever to get away from 'it'.
Freedom is areligious! America is a humanist secular state.
But then all states are secular because nobody has ever
found a religious leader that dares to claim himself God,
well not since that Pharoah bloke who started off this whole
mess called mono-theism.
Nonsense, just nonsense
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Troll.
No seriously. The Churches has historically fought against
new ideas that free thinkers have thought up. Think about it,
religion is at the centre of society, it naturally gets in the way
of any new paradigm. What is creationism? Absurd but
represents the core values of the America establishment,
so we are told by jerks for Jesus.
I know I am a free thinker, and thought of as a heretic, and I am an
excommunicate. Then again, look at the woman who just got shot for
speaking out in Russia. These are dangerous times we are living in.
You have nothing to fear, she was a hero, fought to keep the
state on track. What you ever do?
Violated me and my bishop's boundaries.
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by OK
I had to find my way to the center of society before I got religion. I
don't like creationism. I like evolution. I told the group I prefer The
Lord or Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to Jesus. I prefer Lord or
Master, and that is what I will say.
I have no idea what you just said. Blather is typical of your
average jerk for Jesus.
I call my Lord my Lord and Master. I will not use the word Jesus because
of the American Evangelic ugliness that connotates.
I didn't say you did. I said you blather like your average jerk for
Jesus.
You also seem to miss the point as quick as your average Jesus freak.
Post by OK
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by OK
Thank you for listening to me. Some men in my denomination do not, even
my bishop does not listen to me.
There is no God, obviously you need to get over yourself. Only
a bunch of self-righteous arseholes could believe both that just
by knowing something that knew everything they could get round
the know-it-all tag but get listened to intently by little boys even
so!
What? I believe in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Post by PerfectlyAble
and the wish I were interesting so lets talk about the number one
freaks from the past, Jesus has my brain. Yeah, you are really
a free thinker NOT!
I am a boundary violator.
Post by PerfectlyAble
You have any ideas of your own? Do you actually believe that
following the tried and failed Jesus nonsense will ever get you
diddly-squat! Can I sell you a car that doesn't exist? A bridge
I don't own? A God that doesn't have an ounce of credibility?
Are you so frigging gullible!##
Perhaps I am.
OK
2006-10-18 00:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by OK
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by OK
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by OK
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Freedom of religion is the freedom from other peoples religion.
Freedom of religious speach is the freedom to contradict other
religions.
Freedom is essentially an atheist principle since no religion,
that has deities, allows you ever to get away from 'it'.
Freedom is areligious! America is a humanist secular state.
But then all states are secular because nobody has ever
found a religious leader that dares to claim himself God,
well not since that Pharoah bloke who started off this whole
mess called mono-theism.
Nonsense, just nonsense
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Troll.
No seriously. The Churches has historically fought against
new ideas that free thinkers have thought up. Think about it,
religion is at the centre of society, it naturally gets in the way
of any new paradigm. What is creationism? Absurd but
represents the core values of the America establishment,
so we are told by jerks for Jesus.
I know I am a free thinker, and thought of as a heretic, and I am an
excommunicate. Then again, look at the woman who just got shot for
speaking out in Russia. These are dangerous times we are living in.
You have nothing to fear, she was a hero, fought to keep the
state on track. What you ever do?
Violated me and my bishop's boundaries.
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by OK
I had to find my way to the center of society before I got religion. I
don't like creationism. I like evolution. I told the group I prefer The
Lord or Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to Jesus. I prefer Lord or
Master, and that is what I will say.
I have no idea what you just said. Blather is typical of your
average jerk for Jesus.
I call my Lord my Lord and Master. I will not use the word Jesus because
of the American Evangelic ugliness that connotates.
I didn't say you did. I said you blather like your average jerk for
Jesus.
You also seem to miss the point as quick as your average Jesus freak.
I am not a jerk for Jesus. If you read my messages you will see I can
not stand the use of the word Jesus the way it is used in my society. I
choose to say my Lord. I dare say I can not stand the way the word Jesus
is used in my religion, but I like the way it is used in my
denomination, although I do not consider it to be a denomination.
I do not blather. I do not miss the point. I disagree. And you are
smearing my religion. Congratulations. What intelligent campaigning. I
Shirley will vote for you. Not. I am not a Jesus freak. Blech. That
offends me. Horrid. Are you aware my messages get posted in Siberia
against my will? I am forced to be religious before the world against my
will.
Free Lunch
2006-10-18 00:23:45 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:14:40 GMT, in alt.atheism
OK <***@nospamsnet.net> wrote in
<QleZg.13858$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>:

...
Post by OK
I am not a jerk for Jesus. If you read my messages you will see I can
not stand the use of the word Jesus the way it is used in my society. I
choose to say my Lord. I dare say I can not stand the way the word Jesus
is used in my religion, but I like the way it is used in my
denomination, although I do not consider it to be a denomination.
What is it with people who are so full of themselves that they refuse to
accept the fact that their denomination is a denomination?
Post by OK
I do not blather. I do not miss the point. I disagree. And you are
smearing my religion. Congratulations. What intelligent campaigning. I
Shirley will vote for you. Not. I am not a Jesus freak. Blech. That
offends me. Horrid. Are you aware my messages get posted in Siberia
against my will? I am forced to be religious before the world against my
will.
?
OK
2006-10-18 00:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:14:40 GMT, in alt.atheism
...
Post by OK
I am not a jerk for Jesus. If you read my messages you will see I can
not stand the use of the word Jesus the way it is used in my society. I
choose to say my Lord. I dare say I can not stand the way the word Jesus
is used in my religion, but I like the way it is used in my
denomination, although I do not consider it to be a denomination.
What is it with people who are so full of themselves that they refuse to
accept the fact that their denomination is a denomination?
I am not full of my self. I am full of my religion. My religion believes
that is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Now you find out how
many churches use the Nicene Creed and get back to me.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
I do not blather. I do not miss the point. I disagree. And you are
smearing my religion. Congratulations. What intelligent campaigning. I
Shirley will vote for you. Not. I am not a Jesus freak. Blech. That
offends me. Horrid. Are you aware my messages get posted in Siberia
against my will? I am forced to be religious before the world against my
will.
?
I started writing in a feminist group. My messages got posted on a
mirror site in Siberia against my will that states my names, my nyms, my
diocese, my jurisdiction, my conversion and my excommunication. The
editor of that website does not think a person who belongs to my
jurisdiction should be writing in a feminist group. In addition there
are two double headers, double headed dildos at the top of the page. I
am being ridiculed for writing about sexuality in a feminist group. You
parse that for me because it does not make sense to me. I am being
condemned for being an excommunicated member of my jurisdiction and
writing about sexuality in a feminist group. Is that clear now?
Free Lunch
2006-10-18 00:42:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:33:25 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:14:40 GMT, in alt.atheism
...
Post by OK
I am not a jerk for Jesus. If you read my messages you will see I can
not stand the use of the word Jesus the way it is used in my society. I
choose to say my Lord. I dare say I can not stand the way the word Jesus
is used in my religion, but I like the way it is used in my
denomination, although I do not consider it to be a denomination.
What is it with people who are so full of themselves that they refuse to
accept the fact that their denomination is a denomination?
I am not full of my self. I am full of my religion. My religion believes
that is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Now you find out how
many churches use the Nicene Creed and get back to me.
Orthodox
Roman Catholic
Anglican
Lutheran
etc.
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
I do not blather. I do not miss the point. I disagree. And you are
smearing my religion. Congratulations. What intelligent campaigning. I
Shirley will vote for you. Not. I am not a Jesus freak. Blech. That
offends me. Horrid. Are you aware my messages get posted in Siberia
against my will? I am forced to be religious before the world against my
will.
?
I started writing in a feminist group. My messages got posted on a
mirror site in Siberia against my will that states my names, my nyms, my
diocese, my jurisdiction, my conversion and my excommunication. The
editor of that website does not think a person who belongs to my
jurisdiction should be writing in a feminist group. In addition there
are two double headers, double headed dildos at the top of the page. I
am being ridiculed for writing about sexuality in a feminist group. You
parse that for me because it does not make sense to me. I am being
condemned for being an excommunicated member of my jurisdiction and
writing about sexuality in a feminist group. Is that clear now?
OK
2006-10-18 01:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:33:25 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:14:40 GMT, in alt.atheism
...
Post by OK
I am not a jerk for Jesus. If you read my messages you will see I can
not stand the use of the word Jesus the way it is used in my society. I
choose to say my Lord. I dare say I can not stand the way the word Jesus
is used in my religion, but I like the way it is used in my
denomination, although I do not consider it to be a denomination.
What is it with people who are so full of themselves that they refuse to
accept the fact that their denomination is a denomination?
I am not full of my self. I am full of my religion. My religion believes
that is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Now you find out how
many churches use the Nicene Creed and get back to me.
Orthodox
Roman Catholic
Anglican
Lutheran
etc.
See that? Orthodox is at the top. It started it all. At least you
acknowledge that. The Orthodox church is *the* original, apostolic
Christian faith. It's the real thing baby. Want some?
Al Klein
2006-10-12 01:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Since the religion is older than freedom, I think the polite way to
phrase it would be, "God is anti-freedom". Or "God is pro-slavery".
Same thing, but he actually states the latter.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
- Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
PerfectlyAble
2006-10-12 20:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Since the religion is older than freedom, I think the polite way to
phrase it would be, "God is anti-freedom". Or "God is pro-slavery".
Same thing, but he actually states the latter.
God is an abstraction, has always been one since no evidance
to date has ever been found. Abstractions don't make speaches.
Post by Al Klein
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
- Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
Al Klein
2006-10-12 22:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Since the religion is older than freedom, I think the polite way to
phrase it would be, "God is anti-freedom". Or "God is pro-slavery".
Same thing, but he actually states the latter.
God is an abstraction, has always been one since no evidance
to date has ever been found. Abstractions don't make speaches.
What would you call the things Putsch makes, then?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Never in human history have such genocide and cruelty been
witnessed. Such a genocide was never seen in the time of the pharaohs nor
of Hitler nor of Mussolini."
- Mehmet Elkatmi, head of Turkish parliament's human rights commission
on Bush's genocide in the Iraq war. 11-28-2004
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
OK
2006-10-18 00:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Since the religion is older than freedom, I think the polite way to
phrase it would be, "God is anti-freedom". Or "God is pro-slavery".
Same thing, but he actually states the latter.
God is an abstraction, has always been one since no evidance
to date has ever been found. Abstractions don't make speaches.
What would you call the things Putsch makes, then?
Do you mean Hitler? I am a dummy when it comes to Putsch. Please explain.
Free Lunch
2006-10-18 00:44:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:16:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Since the religion is older than freedom, I think the polite way to
phrase it would be, "God is anti-freedom". Or "God is pro-slavery".
Same thing, but he actually states the latter.
God is an abstraction, has always been one since no evidance
to date has ever been found. Abstractions don't make speaches.
What would you call the things Putsch makes, then?
Do you mean Hitler? I am a dummy when it comes to Putsch. Please explain.
Not quite Hitler. He means the US's current president, referring to the
unusual way he was made president in 2000 and then proceeded to
undermine the constitution after that.
OK
2006-10-18 01:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:16:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Since the religion is older than freedom, I think the polite way to
phrase it would be, "God is anti-freedom". Or "God is pro-slavery".
Same thing, but he actually states the latter.
God is an abstraction, has always been one since no evidance
to date has ever been found. Abstractions don't make speaches.
What would you call the things Putsch makes, then?
Do you mean Hitler? I am a dummy when it comes to Putsch. Please explain.
Not quite Hitler. He means the US's current president, referring to the
unusual way he was made president in 2000 and then proceeded to
undermine the constitution after that.
Oh. Well I am a dummy when it comes to Putsch. I have been ignoring him
after he stopped talking about education.
OK
2006-10-18 00:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Since the religion is older than freedom, I think the polite way to
phrase it would be, "God is anti-freedom". Or "God is pro-slavery".
Same thing, but he actually states the latter.
God is an abstraction, has always been one since no evidance
to date has ever been found. Abstractions don't make speaches.
This I have to agree with. If you do not have my religious belief
system, then you will not believe the Bible. I have to admit believing
the Bible takes faith on my part, personally. I used to be opposed to
the Bible. Now it is a matter of faith, it makes sense, so I accept it.
I am a very rational person by the way. Who cross posted this message?
Who is the OP? I do find this subject exciting, and this cross posting
and I thank you for it! ;-) Did you know that my messages get posted in
Siberia, against my will?
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by Al Klein
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
- Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
OK
2006-10-18 00:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Since the religion is older than freedom, I think the polite way to
phrase it would be, "God is anti-freedom". Or "God is pro-slavery".
Same thing, but he actually states the latter.
What? Freedom is older than religion. In my religion, freedom started
with Adam and Eve in Paradise, before religion. What is your belief? God
is pro freedom. God gave man free will. God is not pro slavery. God
wants us to choose Him. Now what is your belief system, please? And
please reply.
Free Lunch
2006-10-18 00:24:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:09:20 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Since the religion is older than freedom, I think the polite way to
phrase it would be, "God is anti-freedom". Or "God is pro-slavery".
Same thing, but he actually states the latter.
What? Freedom is older than religion. In my religion, freedom started
with Adam and Eve in Paradise, before religion.
Adam and Eve are a religious tale. They don't exist without religion.
Post by OK
What is your belief? God
is pro freedom. God gave man free will. God is not pro slavery. God
wants us to choose Him. Now what is your belief system, please? And
please reply.
OK
2006-10-18 00:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:09:20 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Since the religion is older than freedom, I think the polite way to
phrase it would be, "God is anti-freedom". Or "God is pro-slavery".
Same thing, but he actually states the latter.
What? Freedom is older than religion. In my religion, freedom started
with Adam and Eve in Paradise, before religion.
Adam and Eve are a religious tale. They don't exist without religion.
Fine. So, you believe in evolution. Correct?
When did freedom come about in your belief system?
Free Lunch
2006-10-18 00:44:53 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:34:46 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:09:20 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Since the religion is older than freedom, I think the polite way to
phrase it would be, "God is anti-freedom". Or "God is pro-slavery".
Same thing, but he actually states the latter.
What? Freedom is older than religion. In my religion, freedom started
with Adam and Eve in Paradise, before religion.
Adam and Eve are a religious tale. They don't exist without religion.
Fine. So, you believe in evolution. Correct?
When did freedom come about in your belief system?
Evolution isn't a belief system.
OK
2006-10-18 01:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:34:46 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:09:20 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Since the religion is older than freedom, I think the polite way to
phrase it would be, "God is anti-freedom". Or "God is pro-slavery".
Same thing, but he actually states the latter.
What? Freedom is older than religion. In my religion, freedom started
with Adam and Eve in Paradise, before religion.
Adam and Eve are a religious tale. They don't exist without religion.
Fine. So, you believe in evolution. Correct?
When did freedom come about in your belief system?
Evolution isn't a belief system.
Oh really? It takes faith just like religion. I know about evolution. I
wrote a paper about the big bang theory. I used to work at a science
museum and I used to teach science to children *and* adults. So, what do
you believe then? What is your belief system? I am waiting.
Free Lunch
2006-10-18 02:18:59 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:24:03 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:34:46 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:09:20 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Since the religion is older than freedom, I think the polite way to
phrase it would be, "God is anti-freedom". Or "God is pro-slavery".
Same thing, but he actually states the latter.
What? Freedom is older than religion. In my religion, freedom started
with Adam and Eve in Paradise, before religion.
Adam and Eve are a religious tale. They don't exist without religion.
Fine. So, you believe in evolution. Correct?
When did freedom come about in your belief system?
Evolution isn't a belief system.
Oh really? It takes faith just like religion.
No, it does not. It takes an understanding of the evidence.
Post by OK
I know about evolution.
Oh?
Post by OK
I wrote a paper about the big bang theory.
Well, that has nothing to do with evolution, so why bring it up?
Post by OK
I used to work at a science
museum and I used to teach science to children *and* adults. So, what do
you believe then? What is your belief system? I am waiting.
I would say Jamesian pragmatist. I accept reality because that is where
the evidence is. I accept a balance of social control and personal
independence because that is the only way societies thrive over time.
OK
2006-10-18 02:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:24:03 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:34:46 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:09:20 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Al Klein
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
Since the religion is older than freedom, I think the polite way to
phrase it would be, "God is anti-freedom". Or "God is pro-slavery".
Same thing, but he actually states the latter.
What? Freedom is older than religion. In my religion, freedom started
with Adam and Eve in Paradise, before religion.
Adam and Eve are a religious tale. They don't exist without religion.
Fine. So, you believe in evolution. Correct?
When did freedom come about in your belief system?
Evolution isn't a belief system.
Oh really? It takes faith just like religion.
No, it does not. It takes an understanding of the evidence.
And biblical archeology produces evidence.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
I know about evolution.
Oh?
Good, I am glad you do not assume I do not. Just had to get that clear.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
I wrote a paper about the big bang theory.
Well, that has nothing to do with evolution, so why bring it up?
It does not? It was how I was taught how the universe started.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
I used to work at a science
museum and I used to teach science to children *and* adults. So, what do
you believe then? What is your belief system? I am waiting.
I would say Jamesian pragmatist. I accept reality because that is where
the evidence is. I accept a balance of social control and personal
independence because that is the only way societies thrive over time.
I am dummy when it comes to Jamesian pragmatics. You are going to have
to explain more than that. How do you define reality. Do you know what
ontology is?
Free Lunch
2006-10-18 03:14:47 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:56:25 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:24:03 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:34:46 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:09:20 GMT, in alt.atheism
Adam and Eve are a religious tale. They don't exist without religion.
Fine. So, you believe in evolution. Correct?
When did freedom come about in your belief system?
Evolution isn't a belief system.
Oh really? It takes faith just like religion.
No, it does not. It takes an understanding of the evidence.
And biblical archeology produces evidence.
Much of which shows how unreliable the stories in the Bible are.
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
I know about evolution.
Oh?
Good, I am glad you do not assume I do not. Just had to get that clear.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
I wrote a paper about the big bang theory.
Well, that has nothing to do with evolution, so why bring it up?
It does not? It was how I was taught how the universe started.
Generally, when people refer to evolution in science, they are referring
to biological evolution unless they specifically tell us they are
talking about something else. Biological evolution on earth began after
life began on earth, more than ten billion years after the universe
began. They aren't related in any meaningful manner.
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
I used to work at a science
museum and I used to teach science to children *and* adults. So, what do
you believe then? What is your belief system? I am waiting.
I would say Jamesian pragmatist. I accept reality because that is where
the evidence is. I accept a balance of social control and personal
independence because that is the only way societies thrive over time.
I am dummy when it comes to Jamesian pragmatics. You are going to have
to explain more than that. How do you define reality. Do you know what
ontology is?
Reality is what is observed, both with our senses and with our tools.
Speculation beyond that isn't interesting or meaningful to me.
OK
2006-10-18 03:25:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:56:25 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:24:03 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:34:46 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:09:20 GMT, in alt.atheism
Adam and Eve are a religious tale. They don't exist without religion.
Fine. So, you believe in evolution. Correct?
When did freedom come about in your belief system?
Evolution isn't a belief system.
Oh really? It takes faith just like religion.
No, it does not. It takes an understanding of the evidence.
And biblical archeology produces evidence.
Much of which shows how unreliable the stories in the Bible are.
What do you know about biblical archeology? Are you familiar with the
work of James Crossan?
http://www.accampbell.uklinux.net/bookreviews/r/crossan-2.html
I have Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography if you like. It is about the
historicity of Jesus Christ. It is heretical and I don't want it.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
I know about evolution.
Oh?
Good, I am glad you do not assume I do not. Just had to get that clear.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
I wrote a paper about the big bang theory.
Well, that has nothing to do with evolution, so why bring it up?
It does not? It was how I was taught how the universe started.
Generally, when people refer to evolution in science, they are referring
to biological evolution unless they specifically tell us they are
talking about something else. Biological evolution on earth began after
life began on earth, more than ten billion years after the universe
began. They aren't related in any meaningful manner.
Where did you learn this?
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
I used to work at a science
museum and I used to teach science to children *and* adults. So, what do
you believe then? What is your belief system? I am waiting.
I would say Jamesian pragmatist. I accept reality because that is where
the evidence is. I accept a balance of social control and personal
independence because that is the only way societies thrive over time.
I am dummy when it comes to Jamesian pragmatics. You are going to have
to explain more than that. How do you define reality. Do you know what
ontology is?
Reality is what is observed, both with our senses and with our tools.
Speculation beyond that isn't interesting or meaningful to me.
I am skeptical as well. I have no argument with you. Why do you cross
post to religious groups?
Free Lunch
2006-10-18 03:37:30 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:25:17 GMT, in alt.atheism
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:56:25 GMT, in alt.atheism
...
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
No, it does not. It takes an understanding of the evidence.
And biblical archeology produces evidence.
Much of which shows how unreliable the stories in the Bible are.
What do you know about biblical archeology?
Things I read here and there. Not too much, but enough to know that
biblical archaeologists aren't the favorites of 'literalists' within
Christianity.
Post by OK
Are you familiar with the
work of James Crossan?
http://www.accampbell.uklinux.net/bookreviews/r/crossan-2.html
No, but he seems academically mainstream in this field. I doubt that the
most conservative non-academics will be interested in what he has to
write.
Post by OK
I have Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography if you like. It is about the
historicity of Jesus Christ. It is heretical and I don't want it.
Thanks, but I'll pass. Give it to a library.
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
I know about evolution.
Oh?
Good, I am glad you do not assume I do not. Just had to get that clear.
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
I wrote a paper about the big bang theory.
Well, that has nothing to do with evolution, so why bring it up?
It does not? It was how I was taught how the universe started.
Generally, when people refer to evolution in science, they are referring
to biological evolution unless they specifically tell us they are
talking about something else. Biological evolution on earth began after
life began on earth, more than ten billion years after the universe
began. They aren't related in any meaningful manner.
Where did you learn this?
It's standard usage, why do you ask?
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
Post by Free Lunch
Post by OK
I used to work at a science
museum and I used to teach science to children *and* adults. So, what do
you believe then? What is your belief system? I am waiting.
I would say Jamesian pragmatist. I accept reality because that is where
the evidence is. I accept a balance of social control and personal
independence because that is the only way societies thrive over time.
I am dummy when it comes to Jamesian pragmatics. You are going to have
to explain more than that. How do you define reality. Do you know what
ontology is?
Reality is what is observed, both with our senses and with our tools.
Speculation beyond that isn't interesting or meaningful to me.
I am skeptical as well. I have no argument with you. Why do you cross
post to religious groups?
I don't. I just answer things that I find interesting in alt.atheism. If
it was crossposted, it stays crossposted.

Michael Gray
2006-10-14 02:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Freedom of religion is the freedom from other peoples religion.
Freedom of religious speach is the freedom to contradict other
religions.
Freedom is essentially an atheist principle since no religion,
that has deities, allows you ever to get away from 'it'.
Freedom is areligious! America is a humanist secular state.
But then all states are secular because nobody has ever
found a religious leader that dares to claim himself God,
well not since that Pharoah bloke who started off this whole
mess called mono-theism.
Nonsense, just nonsense
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
How can anything be "anti" something that just does not exist?
OK
2006-10-14 04:06:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gray
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Freedom of religion is the freedom from other peoples religion.
Freedom of religious speach is the freedom to contradict other
religions.
Freedom is essentially an atheist principle since no religion,
that has deities, allows you ever to get away from 'it'.
Freedom is areligious! America is a humanist secular state.
But then all states are secular because nobody has ever
found a religious leader that dares to claim himself God,
well not since that Pharoah bloke who started off this whole
mess called mono-theism.
Nonsense, just nonsense
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
How can anything be "anti" something that just does not exist?
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
Michael Gray
2006-10-14 05:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by Michael Gray
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Freedom of religion is the freedom from other peoples religion.
Freedom of religious speach is the freedom to contradict other
religions.
Freedom is essentially an atheist principle since no religion,
that has deities, allows you ever to get away from 'it'.
Freedom is areligious! America is a humanist secular state.
But then all states are secular because nobody has ever
found a religious leader that dares to claim himself God,
well not since that Pharoah bloke who started off this whole
mess called mono-theism.
Nonsense, just nonsense
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
How can anything be "anti" something that just does not exist?
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary
claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Stephen Adams
2006-10-14 11:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Michael,

Please ignore our troll. She's trying to stir up trouble by crosposting
between alt.atheism and religious groups. Just add SWMNBN to your kill
file. Thanks.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
***@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
OK
2006-10-14 16:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by OK
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Michael,
Please ignore our troll. She's trying to stir up trouble by crosposting
between alt.atheism and religious groups. Just add SWMNBN to your kill
file. Thanks.
-Stephen
Liar. This message came in from those four groups. You are not a
Christian. You seem to be a tool of Satan, posing as a clergyman. I am
forwarding your messages to some of my pastors and professors to get
some help to deal with your sin.
Christopher A. Lee
2006-10-14 16:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by OK
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Michael,
Please ignore our troll. She's trying to stir up trouble by crosposting
between alt.atheism and religious groups. Just add SWMNBN to your kill
file. Thanks.
-Stephen
Liar. This message came in from those four groups. You are not a
Christian. You seem to be a tool of Satan, posing as a clergyman. I am
forwarding your messages to some of my pastors and professors to get
some help to deal with your sin.
What a remarkably stupid thing to cross-post to an atheist newsgroup.
OK
2006-10-14 19:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by OK
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by OK
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Michael,
Please ignore our troll. She's trying to stir up trouble by crosposting
between alt.atheism and religious groups. Just add SWMNBN to your kill
file. Thanks.
-Stephen
Liar. This message came in from those four groups. You are not a
Christian. You seem to be a tool of Satan, posing as a clergyman. I am
forwarding your messages to some of my pastors and professors to get
some help to deal with your sin.
What a remarkably stupid thing to cross-post to an atheist newsgroup.
I am not the one who cross posted. The OP did. Who are you saying did a
stupid thing? I used to be an atheist.
Christopher A. Lee
2006-10-14 20:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by OK
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by OK
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Michael,
Please ignore our troll. She's trying to stir up trouble by crosposting
between alt.atheism and religious groups. Just add SWMNBN to your kill
file. Thanks.
-Stephen
Liar. This message came in from those four groups. You are not a
Christian. You seem to be a tool of Satan, posing as a clergyman. I am
forwarding your messages to some of my pastors and professors to get
some help to deal with your sin.
What a remarkably stupid thing to cross-post to an atheist newsgroup.
I am not the one who cross posted. The OP did. Who are you saying did a
stupid thing? I used to be an atheist.
You did a stupid thing. I don't care who started the cross-posting. It
was still a remarkably stupid thing to cross-post to atheists. Which
you would have realised if you ever used to be one.
OK
2006-10-14 20:45:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by OK
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by OK
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by OK
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Michael,
Please ignore our troll. She's trying to stir up trouble by crosposting
between alt.atheism and religious groups. Just add SWMNBN to your kill
file. Thanks.
-Stephen
Liar. This message came in from those four groups. You are not a
Christian. You seem to be a tool of Satan, posing as a clergyman. I am
forwarding your messages to some of my pastors and professors to get
some help to deal with your sin.
What a remarkably stupid thing to cross-post to an atheist newsgroup.
I am not the one who cross posted. The OP did. Who are you saying did a
stupid thing? I used to be an atheist.
You did a stupid thing. I don't care who started the cross-posting. It
was still a remarkably stupid thing to cross-post to atheists. Which
you would have realised if you ever used to be one.
So are you saying I did a stupid thing because I did not delete the
atheist newsgroup? Someone else sent it here. I did used to be an
atheist, and frankly, right now, I feel like one. I am very new to
Usenet. I would hope you would have some compassion for me. If the
message comes to me from an atheist newsgroup, I am going to reply.
Christopher A. Lee
2006-10-14 22:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by OK
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by OK
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by OK
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Michael,
Please ignore our troll. She's trying to stir up trouble by crosposting
between alt.atheism and religious groups. Just add SWMNBN to your kill
file. Thanks.
-Stephen
Liar. This message came in from those four groups. You are not a
Christian. You seem to be a tool of Satan, posing as a clergyman. I am
forwarding your messages to some of my pastors and professors to get
some help to deal with your sin.
What a remarkably stupid thing to cross-post to an atheist newsgroup.
I am not the one who cross posted. The OP did. Who are you saying did a
stupid thing? I used to be an atheist.
You did a stupid thing. I don't care who started the cross-posting. It
was still a remarkably stupid thing to cross-post to atheists. Which
you would have realised if you ever used to be one.
So are you saying I did a stupid thing because I did not delete the
atheist newsgroup? Someone else sent it here. I did used to be an
atheist, and frankly, right now, I feel like one. I am very new to
Usenet. I would hope you would have some compassion for me. If the
message comes to me from an atheist newsgroup, I am going to reply.
No.

If I'd meant that I would have said it. But I neither said it nor
meant it.

The stupid thing was posting about Satan as though it were real, to an
atheist newsgroup. Which one might expect an ex-atheist to realise
before he did it.
Michael Gray
2006-10-14 22:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by OK
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by OK
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by OK
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Michael,
Please ignore our troll. She's trying to stir up trouble by crosposting
between alt.atheism and religious groups. Just add SWMNBN to your kill
file. Thanks.
-Stephen
Liar. This message came in from those four groups. You are not a
Christian. You seem to be a tool of Satan, posing as a clergyman. I am
forwarding your messages to some of my pastors and professors to get
some help to deal with your sin.
What a remarkably stupid thing to cross-post to an atheist newsgroup.
I am not the one who cross posted. The OP did. Who are you saying did a
stupid thing? I used to be an atheist.
Everyone in the universe was an atheist after they were born.
Suckers only pick up the disorder when carriers deliberately infect
the infant with the nasty affliction.
Don Kresch
2006-10-15 03:52:51 UTC
Permalink
In alt.atheism On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:53:18 GMT, OK
Post by OK
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by OK
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by OK
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Michael,
Please ignore our troll. She's trying to stir up trouble by crosposting
between alt.atheism and religious groups. Just add SWMNBN to your kill
file. Thanks.
-Stephen
Liar. This message came in from those four groups. You are not a
Christian. You seem to be a tool of Satan, posing as a clergyman. I am
forwarding your messages to some of my pastors and professors to get
some help to deal with your sin.
What a remarkably stupid thing to cross-post to an atheist newsgroup.
I am not the one who cross posted. The OP did. Who are you saying did a
stupid thing? I used to be an atheist.
Only when you were born. After that, you were brainwashed.


Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
OK
2006-10-15 04:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Kresch
In alt.atheism On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:53:18 GMT, OK
Post by OK
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by OK
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by OK
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Michael,
Please ignore our troll. She's trying to stir up trouble by crosposting
between alt.atheism and religious groups. Just add SWMNBN to your kill
file. Thanks.
-Stephen
Liar. This message came in from those four groups. You are not a
Christian. You seem to be a tool of Satan, posing as a clergyman. I am
forwarding your messages to some of my pastors and professors to get
some help to deal with your sin.
What a remarkably stupid thing to cross-post to an atheist newsgroup.
I am not the one who cross posted. The OP did. Who are you saying did a
stupid thing? I used to be an atheist.
Only when you were born. After that, you were brainwashed.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
I get to reply to both groups now! Yay!
I chose to get baptized when I was 23 years old! That is when I was
brainwashed <eg> by my own choice! Hooray!
Michael Gray
2006-10-14 22:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by OK
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Michael,
Please ignore our troll. She's trying to stir up trouble by crosposting
between alt.atheism and religious groups. Just add SWMNBN to your kill
file. Thanks.
-Stephen
I do believe that I will follow your advice, and I thank you for the
courteous information, sir.
OK
2006-10-14 22:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gray
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by OK
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Michael,
Please ignore our troll. She's trying to stir up trouble by crosposting
between alt.atheism and religious groups. Just add SWMNBN to your kill
file. Thanks.
-Stephen
I do believe that I will follow your advice, and I thank you for the
courteous information, sir.
That is false information. I did not know I was cross posting. I am not
to blame. I have replied in alt.atheism, of which I am now a member. And
I am replying here as well. I will not have my name blackened by a wolf
in sheep's clothing. You are not behaving in a Christian manner, sub
deacon.
Stephen Adams
2006-10-15 02:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gray
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by OK
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Michael,
Please ignore our troll. She's trying to stir up trouble by crosposting
between alt.atheism and religious groups. Just add SWMNBN to your kill
file. Thanks.
-Stephen
I do believe that I will follow your advice, and I thank you for the
courteous information, sir.
You're welcome. Most of the people in the orthodox newsgroup have
her in the killfile. Most only see her posts when others respond
to her.

This'll be my last cross-post...

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
***@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
OK
2006-10-15 03:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by Michael Gray
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by OK
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Michael,
Please ignore our troll. She's trying to stir up trouble by crosposting
between alt.atheism and religious groups. Just add SWMNBN to your kill
file. Thanks.
-Stephen
I do believe that I will follow your advice, and I thank you for the
courteous information, sir.
You're welcome. Most of the people in the orthodox newsgroup have
her in the killfile. Most only see her posts when others respond
to her.
This'll be my last cross-post...
-Stephen
Liar. Hundreds of thousands read this newsgroup and Subdeacon has the
***audacity*** to speak for them? Subdeacon is no metropolitan!
Subdeacon thinks he is Metropolitan Phillip. Is he? Subdeacon, are you
really Metropolitan Phillip in disguise? Or just his mouthpiece? Who are
you under there?
I, on the other hand, joined alt.atheist ***and*** received a mentor
right away. They value me more than you do, Subdeacon. Be glad I love my
Church. You would lose me in a flash if I did not. I am quite an
attractive convert, for any belief system.
What a foolish man subdeacon is. I honestly hope you have more
intelligence than to listen to him.
Michael Gray
2006-10-15 03:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by Michael Gray
Post by Stephen Adams
Post by OK
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Michael,
Please ignore our troll. She's trying to stir up trouble by crosposting
between alt.atheism and religious groups. Just add SWMNBN to your kill
file. Thanks.
-Stephen
I do believe that I will follow your advice, and I thank you for the
courteous information, sir.
You're welcome. Most of the people in the orthodox newsgroup have
her in the killfile. Most only see her posts when others respond
to her.
This'll be my last cross-post...
<Imp mode on>
A "Cross" post in a Christian group?!

...Oh, please yourself!
Post by Stephen Adams
-Stephen
OK
2006-10-14 20:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gray
Post by OK
Post by Michael Gray
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Post by PerfectlyAble
Post by C***@bigsecret.com
Catholicism/Orthodoxy world Versus Islamic world.
Where do you see more freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of
religion?
Freedom of religion is the freedom from other peoples religion.
Freedom of religious speach is the freedom to contradict other
religions.
Freedom is essentially an atheist principle since no religion,
that has deities, allows you ever to get away from 'it'.
Freedom is areligious! America is a humanist secular state.
But then all states are secular because nobody has ever
found a religious leader that dares to claim himself God,
well not since that Pharoah bloke who started off this whole
mess called mono-theism.
Nonsense, just nonsense
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
How can anything be "anti" something that just does not exist?
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
The burden of proof is incumbent on those who make extraordinary
claims.
Where is even one tiny scrap of evidence that there is such a thing?
(Hint: there is none).
Ok, I am breaking protocol here by replying to this cross post from an
atheist newsgroup. Does your group have a charter or a FAQ?

I used to be an atheist. I can not prove the existence of God to you. I
am sorry for being so harsh. I am in a lot of pain right now and lashing
out at everyone. I am a sadist as well as a masochist, what is known as
a switch in BDSM parlance.
thomas p.
2006-10-16 10:36:24 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by OK
Post by Michael Gray
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
How can anything be "anti" something that just does not exist?
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
No need. You made a positive claim that makes no sense if there is no
god. You provided no evidence for this being, therefore there is no
reason to believe that your claim has any validity at all.
Michael Gray
2006-10-16 12:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas p.
snip
Post by OK
Post by Michael Gray
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
How can anything be "anti" something that just does not exist?
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
No need. You made a positive claim that makes no sense if there is no
god. You provided no evidence for this being, therefore there is no
reason to believe that your claim has any validity at all.
It seems that "OK" is anything but.
She seeks attention like a moth seeks a flame.
One can only hope that the same fate awaits...
Christopher A. Lee
2006-10-16 13:21:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:34:34 +0930, Michael Gray
Post by Michael Gray
Post by thomas p.
snip
Post by OK
Post by Michael Gray
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
How can anything be "anti" something that just does not exist?
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
No need. You made a positive claim that makes no sense if there is no
god. You provided no evidence for this being, therefore there is no
reason to believe that your claim has any validity at all.
It seems that "OK" is anything but.
She seeks attention like a moth seeks a flame.
One can only hope that the same fate awaits...
It doesn't seem to understand that whether or not it exists in the
real world outside its religion, one would have to believe it did in
order to hate it.

It can't grasp that for an atheist to hate it, would be like it hating
Sauron.

They're not stupid in their own self-image, nobody is.
OK
2006-10-17 23:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:34:34 +0930, Michael Gray
Post by Michael Gray
Post by thomas p.
snip
Post by OK
Post by Michael Gray
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
How can anything be "anti" something that just does not exist?
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
No need. You made a positive claim that makes no sense if there is no
god. You provided no evidence for this being, therefore there is no
reason to believe that your claim has any validity at all.
It seems that "OK" is anything but.
She seeks attention like a moth seeks a flame.
One can only hope that the same fate awaits...
It doesn't seem to understand that whether or not it exists in the
real world outside its religion, one would have to believe it did in
order to hate it.
It can't grasp that for an atheist to hate it, would be like it hating
Sauron.
They're not stupid in their own self-image, nobody is.
Pardon me. I am a human being. You are smearing as well. Why?
I did not say anything about hate. You don't believe in Sauron? Why not?
Self image? Define that.
I take it you are not talking about me creep.
OK
2006-10-17 23:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gray
Post by thomas p.
snip
Post by OK
Post by Michael Gray
Post by PerfectlyAble
Freedom is not nonsense. Freedom is anti-God.
How can anything be "anti" something that just does not exist?
Prove that God does not exist atheist.
No need. You made a positive claim that makes no sense if there is no
god. You provided no evidence for this being, therefore there is no
reason to believe that your claim has any validity at all.
It seems that "OK" is anything but.
She seeks attention like a moth seeks a flame.
One can only hope that the same fate awaits...
You are forcing me to justify myself *and* you are smearing me. I do not
seek attention. Get it? I am given it like it or not. I attract
attention, wanted or not.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...